VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES DIVISION
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LIST	
vcat reference Nos. R2021/361
R2021/6278
R2022/17288	
CATCHWORDS	
Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) sections 416, 417, 419, 419A, 72 and 452 - Claim by residential rental provider (RRP) for breaching a fixed term rental agreement - agreement to end rental agreement – dispute as to terms of the agreement – RRP’s claim for damage to common property - whether RRP has incurred a loss - Renters claim to be reimbursed for the cost of repairs - Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic). section 112 - offer of settlement. 	

APPLICANT (R2021/361 and R2022/17288)	Dustin Andah Pty Ltd 	
RESPONDENT (R2021/361 AND R2022/17288)	Christopher Shao

APPLICANT (R2021/6278)	Christopher Shao
	
RESPONDENT (R2021/6278)	Dustin Andah Pty Ltd	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne by teleconference 	
BEFORE	W Boddison, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATEs OF HEARING	17 April 2023	
DATE OF ORDER	19 July 2023	
CITATION	Dustin Andah Pty Ltd v Shao (Residential Tenancies) [2023] VCAT 826	

Findings 
1	In proceeding R2021/361 the renter must pay the residential rental provider $3,661.90.
2	Proceeding R2022/17288 is dismissed.
3	In proceeding R2021/6278 the residential rental provider must pay the renter $599.00.
4	Setting off the amounts, the renter shall pay the residential rental provider $3,062.90.
5	There is a bond of $8,000.00
Orders
1.	Direct that the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority pay:
$3,062.90 to the residential rental provider. 
$4,937.10	to the renter. 
2.	No order as to costs. 

W Boddison
Member			

APPEARANCES:		
For Residential Rental Provider 	Mr Wu, director, Ms Griffin and Mr Peake, Real Estate Agents 	
For Renter	Mr Sehler, Solicitor Kauthen Legal  	

Reasons
Background 
1	Dustin Andah Pty Ltd (the residential rental provider) (“RRP”) rented premises to Christopher Shao (“the renter”) pursuant to a six month fixed term rental agreement that commenced on 27 November 2020 and was due to end on 26 May 2021. The rent was $6,952.00 per calendar month. A bond of $8,000.00 was lodged with the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority. The renter vacated the premises on 21 December 2020 and the rent was paid until 26 December 2020.
The applications
The residential rental provider’s applications 
First application (R2021-361)
2	On 6 January 2021, the RRP made an application to be paid $5,381.97 from the bond. The application stated in part:
The tenants lease started on the 27/11/2020 and ended on the 18/12/2020 by mutual agreement. The Landlord is seeking costs associated with damages to the building common areas caused by the tenant moving gambling tables into the apartment using a scissor lift in the front common entry area of the building… Tenant has agreed to pay all costs except for the damage to the ground floor wall, front door device, door handle and entrance furniture totaling 3,329.00. There is CCTV evidence.
3	The claim was brought under sections 417 and 419 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) (“RT Act”). The RRP also sought an extension of time to lodge the application. Section 417 required the application to be made within 10 business days after the tenant delivers up vacant possession. However due to the public holidays the application was lodged within 10 business days and an extension is not required. 
Second application (R2022-17288)
4	On 21 June 2022, the RRP made an application to be paid the bond under section 419A of the RT Act and compensation under section 452 of the RT Act. The claim of $44,706.61 was made of the following amounts:
•	Damage to common property $5,381.97
•	Security guard costs $2,112.00
•	Compensation for breach of a fixed term rental agreement consisting of:
•	145 days loss of rent $33,293.41
•	Advertising $403.33
•	Letting Fee $2420.00
•	National Tenancy Database (“NTD”) checks $44.00
•	Condition report fee $165.00
•	Costs (application fee and costs of agent attending VCAT $226.90 $660.00)
5	This claim was later amended to be:
•	Loss of rent $32,912.64
•	Advertising $347.04
•	Letting fee $2,082.24
•	NTD checks $44.00
•	Condition report fee $165
•	Damage $5,381.97
•	Security guards $2,112.00
•	VCAT application fee $220.90
•	VCAT representation fee estimated $660.00 
•	Total $43,925.79
The renters’ application 
6	On 17 February 2021, the renter made an application “for return of bond money” which stated:
“Landlord refuses to produce evidence of damage even though he says he has CCTV and witness statements. We indicated that we did not cause damage to our knowledge but if we did by accident and landlord can show the proof he says he has then we will oblige. We believe the landlord is attempting to use our bond to pay for repairs by other tenants to his poorly maintained premises. Agent has been not complying with the RTA by not refunding bond knowing that the landlord does not have the evidence. We seek:
- $599 for repairs we paid to the air conditioner that the landlord refuses to pay us notwithstanding his condition report stated the air conditioner was working
- $4671 return of bond balance which is less damage we agree we caused to the front tiles of the premises
- $2800 legal fees caused by the landlord using the process of VCAT improperly
The material before the Tribunal 
7	I heard evidence at a hearing held on 17 April 2023. Mr Wu the director of the RRP and the RRP’s agents Ms Griffin and Mr Peake gave evidence on behalf of RRP. The renter gave evidence. Both parties provided extensive written materials to the Tribunal. 
The RRP claims 
The facts
8	The facts were generally not in dispute and where they are I have indicated below. 
9	When the renter moved into the rented premises he used a scissor lift to lift furniture onto the balcony of the rented premises. He acknowledged that he damaged the exterior of the building which was part of the common property.
10	The RRP claims that through the Owners Corporation (“OC”) it received many complaints about noise from the rented premises which was caused by a large number of visitors to the rented premises. 
11	The RRP claimed that the renter when moving in caused damage to the common property on the exterior of the building, damage to a table in the foyer, damage to a door handle, damage to the foyer wall and damage to a locking device. 
12	The renter gave evidence that he was approached by the RRP’s agent who suggested that they end the rental agreement. I understand that this was in the context of the complaints the RRP claimed to have received. It was not disputed by the RRP’s agent that it was the RRP who first suggested ending the fixed term rental agreement early.
13	There then followed a series of exchanges via email and text between the RRP’s agent and the renter.
14	In summary the renter agreed to pay for repairing the damage he caused to the common area when moving in and that he would not have further visitors, and the RRP agreed it would not claim the costs of ending the fixed term rental agreement early, known as ‘break lease costs’.
15	A dispute arose over the extent of the damage said to be caused by the renter. The renter agreed to pay for the exterior damage but denied causing any damage to the foyer and the foyer furniture. He indicated that if the RRP could provide proof that he caused the interior damage he would pay for it. The RRP claims that it had proof in the form of CCTV footage and witness statements.
The contemporaneous correspondence. 
16	On 9 December 2020, the following email exchange took place:
17	The renter emailed the RRP agent stating:
As per conversation over the phone, I think we have come to an agreement the property at … might not be the best option for me.  I am happy to vacate the property by end of Monday the 14th December. In condition of a full refund of the full month rent and bond.
I’ll still pay for the invoices for the damage we’ve done to the front pathway during our move.
18	The RRP’s agent responded: 
"Agree to mutual termination of lease on condition the tenant does NOT have ‘guests’ from now until he vacates Monday 14/12. If he breaches this condition I will pursue him for all damages and with full force of the law. One month rent is not refundable. Bond will be returned upon satisfactory final inspection."
19	The renter responded:
There will be no more guests entering the property besides myself and removalists. 
I assume the first months rent will pay for the damage to the tiles and the lights. I have only been in the property for a week and half the lights and blinds aren’t working.
20	The RRP’s agent responded confirming the “notice of intention to vacate” and advised the renter that $0 rent was owing. This appeared to be a standard end of rental agreement letter. 
21	On 11 December 2020, the renter requested an extension of the vacate date “to make we have enough time to move out properly”. The renter vacated on 21 December 2020.
22	After the renter vacated, on 22 December 2020 in a text message exchange the renter asked, “is there anything I have to worry about besides the trade works at the front” The RRP’s agent responded, “There will be a full bond refund once the exterior damages are sorted.”
23	The same day the RRP’s agent sent to the renter a quote to repair the damage. On 24 December 2020, the renter then sent a text to the RRP: 
Hi Ella, I believe the quotation includes damages that we not [sic] caused by me. 
We did not damage the following:
Ground floor wall 
Locking dorman device 
Main entrance door handle 
Furniture 
Therefore I am only responsible for damages up to $3329.00 according to your quotation.
24	The RRP’s agent responded:
Hi Chris the door was also damaged when a poker table was leaned against it. The Owner has said the following 
Should you not agree to pay the full amount by COB today he will persue [sic] the claim through VCAT and then pursue you through the Magistrates Courts for commercial loss incurred.
25	On 6 January 2021, the renter’s solicitor emailed the RRP’s agent: 
Mr Shao has instructed that he will pay for damage caused him [sic] during his occupancy by use of the scissor lift which he confirms as being damage to the front pathway and rendered wall totalling $3,329.00 + GST per the quote provided by Centric Facilities Management.
He denies any damage to furniture and the door handles, plaster walls and the locking device on the car park. It is our understanding that these areas are common property and there is no evidence that Mr Shao caused the damage or that the damage wasn’t caused by wear and tear from other tenants.
Accordingly we kindly request that your client provide photographs of the damage in dispute so that this can be compared to the images and line items in the condition report, as well as any further documentation that attributes the disputed damage to our client
Should you take any action prior to providing the above information we will produce this email as to the question of seeking an order of costs against your client on an indemnity basis.
26	The RRP’s agent responded:
Our client has advised us to proceed with our full claim to VCAT.
There is CCTV cameras in the building and plenty of evidence to substantiate the claim which your client is now fully aware.
It is alleged your client was running an illegal gambling facility in the building and was also under investigation by Victoria Police.
He has caused significant loss of quiet enjoyment and great distress to other residents in building. This footage will be produced at VCAT.
Our client has instructed us not to communicate further unless you wish to settle the claim prior to the VCAT hearing.
27	The renter’s solicitor responded:
We note the document sent to our client does not provide the information we requested of the alleged damage and any causation by our client.
Our client has expressed his desire to settle but you have refused to substantiate the damage.
If your client wishes a meaningful discussion to settle please provide the information requested
28	As noted above the RRP lodged its first application the same day which stated, “Further evidence will be supplied to yourself and VCAT before the Hearing.”
29	On 12 January 2021, the RRP’s agent informed the renter’s solicitor:
[the representative of the RRP has said] he has CCTV footage and witness statements from other residents and is considering pursuing this matter further with police and breach of contract in the magistrates court.
He is considering these options unless he receives full settlement of this amount. He will not be subjecting the other residents to any further distress and inconvenience ( given the illegal activities alleged to be undertaken by your client).
VCAT will be provided with the necessary information at the hearing.
30	On 23 January 2021, the renter’s solicitor responded advising that the renter “will be seeking a costs order against your client on the day of the tribunal for being unreasonable in not providing evidence that he says he has of our client causing the damage alleged (other than what our client has already agreed to)”.
31	The solicitor went on to state that if the CCTV footage and witnesses’ statements were provided and it showed the renter caused the interior damage, he would pay for it. He stated that the renter was seeking $599.00 which he paid for repairing the air conditioning at the rented premises. The renter disputed the allegation that he was running an illegal gambling operation.
32	There was then a lull in the correspondence until 12 May 2021 when the renter’s agent sent the renter a tax invoice dated 17 January 2021 for security hire at the building on 11 and 12 December totalling $2,112.00 “which will be added to the claim lodged with VCAT”. 
33	The renter’s agent also provided an affidavit from the OC manager made 12 May 2021 which stated in summary: 
•	That on 30 November 2020, it was brought to his attention that the renters of apartment 8 had caused considerable damage to the common property of the building. They had driven a cherry picker up a pedestrian walkway to the front door. 
•	Due to the way the premises are meticulously maintained the damage inflicted by the renters was quickly and easily identified. 
•	During the time the renter was in occupation he was receiving regular after hours calls from distressed residents regarding the noise and disturbance being caused by their regular visitors. 
•	residents who witnessed the damage caused were living in fear due to the high number of visitors they were not prepared to make statements. 
•	the police were regularly called. 
34	On 28 March 2022, the renter’s solicitor sent a formal settlement offer: 
The Respondent will pay to the Applicant the sum of $3,662.45 for the cost of replacing the 18 cracked tiles, damaged light to front entrance path from scissor life and rendered wall damage from scissor lift on satisfactory receipt of evidence demonstrating that the Applicant incurred the costs.
This offer is made in accordance with sections 112, 113 114 and 115 Victorian Civil & Administrative Act 1998
35	Mr Wu gave evidence at the hearing that the OC had not sought to recover the cost of the repairs or the cost of the security guard from the RRP. He said they were holding off until after the VCAT hearing. The RRP had not been billed by, or paid the OC for these amounts. Mr Wu explained he had a good relationship with OC as the RRP built the complex and used to own all units and now only owns the rented premises. 
36	Mr Wu said the RRP was claiming what is known as break lease costs because the renter breached the agreement they had to end the rental agreement. Mr Wu stated this agreement was that the renter would pay for all the damages and he would be able to move out immediately and end the rental agreement. In fact the renter did not pay for all the damages, and only agreed to pay for the damages to the outside of the premises.  As the renter breached the agreement ending the rental agreement, the RRP claimed it was entitled to claim break lease costs.
37	Mr Wu explained the RRP was not able to take photographs of the interior damage and so relied on what the maintenance man told him. Initially he stated that he could not take photos because of Covid lockdown but it was established that there was no lock down at the relevant time.
38	Mr Wu said that the OC had to hire security guards because the other residents were scared of the renter’s visitors, and there were people coming and going during lockdown. He understood that other residents had disputes with the renter’s visitors and the residents felt threatened. He could not describe the threats or the basis for the resident’s fear other than the renter’s visitors were unruly and breached lockdown (it was clarified they did not). He received feedback from the OC manager that the other residents were scared. 
39	Mr Wu agreed that the first time he claimed the RRP was owed break lease costs was in the second application lodged in June 2021. 
40	The premises were put on the market on 21 December 2020 and eventually rented out at a reduced rent on 21 May 2023.
41	The renter gave evidence at the hearing that it was the RRP’s agent who approached him to terminate the lease. He agreed to pay the damage caused by the scissor lift to the front of the premises which was around $3,300.00.
42	He said that he did not cause the damage to the foyer of the building.  
43	The renter said the police attended on one occasion and told him to keep the noise and music down. He spoke to the police on this occasion. 
Assessment of the evidence reasons and findings
The RRP’s applications 
Agreement to end fixed term rental agreement
44	The RRP has the onus of proving its case on the balance of probabilities. 
45	In relation to the ending of the fixed term it is important to note that the RRP initiated the termination of the rental agreement. I accept that this was in the context of receiving a number of complaints regarding the behaviour renter’s visitors. The RRP wanted the renter to leave and by initiating a discussion with the renter to end the rental agreement and reaching an agreement it meant that it would not have to serve a notice to vacate, nor prove the grounds in any notice. The renter agreed to end the rental agreement. 
46	A dispute has arisen as to the terms of that agreement. 
47	The renter agreed to no further visitors (other than removalists). He agreed implicitly to bear the costs of moving out after only four weeks in residence. 
48	The RRP claims that the renter agreed to pay for the repair of the interior and exterior damage as part of the rental termination agreement. Although the RRP’s representative may believe that was what was agreed the evidence does not support this. 
49	The renter agreed to pay for the damage he caused to the exterior of the property and forgo any overpaid rent. He was told once he paid for the exterior damage his bond would be refunded. 
50	It was not until after he vacated that he was provided with a quotation that included repairs to items in the interior of the property. He immediately stated he did not cause this damage. He agreed to pay $3,329.00 being the cost of repairing the exterior damage which he agreed he had caused. 
51	In the subsequent correspondence the renter always disputed that he caused any interior damage but always maintained that if the RRP could provide proof that he caused the interior damage he would be prepared to pay for any additional damage. He repeatedly asked the RRP to supply the evidence that established that he caused the interior damage. 
52	In correspondence with the renter and in the application to VCAT, the RRP claimed to have CCTV footage and witness statements to establish the renter caused this damage. 
53	No CCTV footage has ever been supplied to the renter or to VCAT. Two stills from the CCTV were provided. One picture is taken from the foyer looking out through a glass door to the exterior and depicts the renter outside the building a metre or so from the door using the scissor lift. The second picture depicts what appears to be a large table wrapped in padding leaning against the wall in the foyer. A photograph was also provided of a table in the foyer. (Photographs of the damage to the exterior which was not in dispute were also supplied).
54	The affidavit from the OC manager does not describe the damage at all. It only refers to damage caused by the scissor lift which was operated outside the building. The affidavit is striking for its lack of detail. 
55	No statements from the other residents, or anyone who witnessed the damage being caused, have ever been produced. 
56	No photographs of any damage to the foyer wall or door handle have ever been produced by the RRP. There is no photograph of the table before the alleged damage or description of what the damage to the table is, or how it is alleged it was caused. There is no statement from the maintenance man who Mr Wu claimed he relied on in relation to the causation of the damage to the table and interior. Due the extensive correspondence between the parties, the RRP was on notice that the cause of this damage was disputed and evidence needed to be provided to establish the renter caused the damage.
57	The RRP has not established that the renter caused any damage to the interior of the rented premises or to the door handle or door lock. 
58	There is then the issue of whether the RRP has actually suffered any loss, as the damage the renter caused was to the common property and the OC paid for the repairs. The OC has not sought reimbursement of the repair costs from the RRP despite the passage of a significant amount of time. Though Mr Wu indicated that this is something that might still occur but was dependent on the outcome of the VCAT hearing. At the time the RRP made the application until now it has not suffered this loss – it may be a future loss. 
59	Although the RRP has not established that it has suffered a loss as a result of the damage caused by the renter, I am prepared to find that the renter owes the RRP $3,329.00 on the basis that he agreed to pay to the RRP the this specific amount the cost of the exterior repairs as part of the negotiations to end the rental agreement.
Security guard 
60	The claim by the RRP, that the renter was responsible to pay for the cost of the security guards hired by the OC during the period of his occupation, did not arise until 6 months after the renter had vacated the rented premises. The security guards were ostensibly hired by the OC because residents felt afraid of the renter’s visitors. Mr Wu gave evidence the other residents felt afraid and threatened but could not explain why. He stated they were concerned because the renter’s visitors were breaching Covid-19 restrictions when in fact there were no restrictions on visitors at the relevant time. No evidence has been provided from the residents. No material has been provided from the police. No material has been provided that the security guards were necessary because of, or to remedy, any breach of duty by the renter. 
61	Further, as it is a cost borne by the OC there has been no loss to the RRP. The RRP is not entitled to recover the cost of the security guards from the renter.
Break lease costs
62	The RRP claims that he is entitled to break lease costs because the renter reneged on the agreement to pay for all the damages to the common property and the RRP only agreed to the renter breaking the lease on the basis the renter would pay these costs. 
63	Firstly as noted above, it was the RRP who initiated the termination of the rental agreement. Further, if the agreement was that the renter pay for all the damage (namely the interior and exterior damage) and it is alleged that the renter did not pay that amount, then the remedy the RRP has for breaching the agreement would be to claim the amount the RRP believed the renter agreed to pay. (I have found above he did not agree to pay for the interior damage). 
64	As he agreed to end the rental agreement, even if the renter had breached the terms of that agreement (which I found he did not) it would not entitle him to claim the costs he incurred as a consequences of agreeing to end the rental agreement. The RRP is not entitled to break lease costs.
The renter’s claim 
65	The renter gave evidence that the air conditioning and the lights did not work at the commencement of the rental agreement. As it was summertime it was very hot in the rented premises for him and his visitors. 
66	He contacted the RRP’s agent on 28 November 2020 the day after he moved in. The agent advised the renter that she had spoken to the building manager and they would send someone. A technician attended the rented premises at around 1:30pm. That technician told the renter he could not repair the air-conditioner and lights and that it would require an expert. The renter said the technician told him it could take a week to be fixed. 
67	The invoice later provided by the RRP’s technician notes: “the power and lighting at the property were controlled by a concept 2000 board (similar to Cbus). Not a standard switch board attempted to reset to restore lighting no lights restored – a specialist will need to attend to inspect/repair.” 
68	According to the documents provided to VCAT the renter reported to the RRP’s agent what the technician had said at 1:30pm and followed up again at 1:45pm but there was no response. In his message he states that he has no lights and no AC. 
69	The renter said that the agent responded she would get back to him. He said that he had been referred to three different people including the building manager who had been unable to resolve the problem. 
70	When the agent did not get back to him, he engaged his own technician who did a temporary fix that meant the lights and air conditioning functioned. 
71	The renter’s technician’s invoice stated it investigated the problem and changed the settings to bypass the Cbus system. This restored the air conditioning and lights.
72	On 29 November 2020, the RRP’s agent contacted the renter and said a person familiar with the system could attend the following day. The renter’s technician had already restored the lights and air conditioning. 
73	Mr Wu stated that the renter’s technician performed a temporary fix to the problem and the central modules still needed replacing. The RRP also provided a subsequent invoice dated 5 December 2020, though it is unclear from the invoice when the works were carried out. The invoice noted that the technician returned to “replace power supply as needed to get the system working please note parts are still in need of repair.” 
74	It was noted in the condition report that the air conditioning did not work. The report was uploaded to the RRP’s agent on 4 December 2020. The renter uploaded the invoice from the electrician for the repair which he had paid for, with the condition report.
75	On 22 December 2020, the renter sent a text to the RRP’s agent regarding the cost of the “AC repair” seeking reimbursement.
Is the renter entitled to reimbursement for the repair? 
76	Section 72 of the RT Act then in force stated: 
72. Urgent repairs
(1) 	A tenant may arrange for urgent repairs to be carried out to the rented premises if—
(a) 	the tenant has taken reasonable steps to arrange for the landlord or the landlord's agent to immediately carry out the repairs;
and
(b) 	the tenant is unable to get the landlord or agent to carry out the repairs.
(2) 	If the tenant carries out repairs under sub-section (1)—
(a) 	the tenant must give the landlord 14 days written notice of the repairs carried out and the cost; and
(b) 	the landlord is liable to reimburse the tenant for the reasonable cost of the repairs or $1000, whichever is less.
77	The term “urgent repair” as it was then defined in the RT Act did not include a breakdown of any cooling appliance (as it does now) but did include “any fault or damage that makes rented premises unsafe.” The lack of lighting and the lack of air-conditioning in hot weather would make the rented premises unsafe. I am satisfied that the repair was an urgent repair as then defined in the RT Act. 
78	The renter had taken reasonable steps to arrange for the RRP or the agent to immediately carry out the repairs. The renter gave the RRP written notice of the repair carried out and the cost. The renter is entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of the repair. 
Summary 
79	Applying these findings to the applications before me: 
•	In the RRP’s application R2021/361 the RRP is entitled to be paid $3,329.00 plus GST, an amount of $3,661.90 by the renter. 
•	The RRP’s second application R2022/172888 is dismissed.
•	In application R2021/6278 the RRP shall pay the renter $599.00.
•	Setting off the amount the RRP owes the renter, the renter shall pay the RRP $3,062.90 which will be deducted from the bond.
•	There is a bond of $8000. 
•	I will direct the residential tenancies bond authority to pay the RRP $3,062.90 and the balance of the bond of $4,937.10 be paid to the renter. 
costs
80	In these proceedings both parties have claimed costs. 
81	The residential tenancies list is generally a no costs jurisdiction. 
82	As R2022/17288 has been dismissed the RRP has no entitlement to costs. No costs were claimed in R2021/361 and as the RRP has only recovered what the renter has always agreed to pay, it is not entitled to costs.
83	The renter made an offer of settlement in accordance with sections 112, 113, 114 and 115 of the VCAT Act. 
84	The offer of settlement was sent by email to the RRP’s agent on 29 March 2022. Paragraph 3 of that offer states “This offer remains open for acceptance for a period of 14 days after receipt by the Respondent.”
85	The offer was being made by the respondent and sent to the applicant thus the offer would never be “received by the respondent.” It appears the offer should have stated it “remains open … after receipt by the applicant”. Thus the period of time the offer was open for is unclear.
86	Section 112 of the VCAT Act provides:
Presumption of order for costs if settlement offer is rejected
(1)		This section applies if -
(a) 	a party to a proceeding (other than a proceeding for review of a decision) gives another party an offer in writing to settle the proceeding; and
(b) 	the other party does not accept the offer within the time the offer is open; and
(c)	 	the offer complies with sections 113 and 114; and
(d) 	in the opinion of the Tribunal, the orders made by the Tribunal in the proceeding are not more favourable to the other party than the offer.
(2) 	If this section applies and unless the Tribunal orders otherwise, a party who made an offer referred to in sub-section (1)(a) is entitled to an order that the party who did not accept the offer pay all costs incurred by the offering party after the offer was made.
(3) 	In determining whether its orders are or are not more favourable to a party than an offer, the Tribunal –
(a) 	must take into account any costs it would have ordered on the date the offer was made; and
(b) 	must disregard any interest or costs it ordered in respect of any period after the date the offer was received.
87	The form of the offer of compromise did not comply with section 114 as the period that it was open for was unclear. It purported to be for a specified period but that period could not be determined. Further section 113(4) requires that the offer also needs to specify the date on which payment will be made, if it provides for the payment of money. No date was provided.
88	Therefore the renter has not established his entitlement to costs under section 112 of the VCAT Act. 
89	I make no order as to costs. 

W Boddison
Member