VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Residential Tenancies Division
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LIST		VCAT REFERENCE NO. R2024/17474

CATCHWORDS	
Application for bond and compensation under Sections 419A and 452 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic).	

APPLICANTs	Adam Grimison
Sarah Grimison 	
RESPONDENTS	Sanjeevan Baskaran
Kathusiyan Satheekumar 	
WHERE HELD	Oakleigh VCAT	
BEFORE	Member Webb	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	28 February 2025 	
DATE OF ORDER	26 March 2025	
CITATION	Grimison v Baskaran (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 274	

Order
The Tribunal finds that:
The claims for compensation in the application have been proved in the amounts shown on the evidence presented today and taking into account fair wear and tear and depreciation (all other claims being dismissed):-
Arrears of rent	$8,409.35.	
Locks replaced allowed at	$1,144.00	
Total claim proved	$9,553.35.	
The Tribunal finds that the renter has paid a bond of	$2,216.07.	

The Tribunal orders that:
1.	The Residential Tenancies Bond Authority must pay:
To the residential rental providers                                   $2,216.07
2.	The renters must pay the residential rental providers compensation fixed at $7,337.28 being the balance after deduction of the bond.
3.	Any order for arrears of rent made today includes all previous unsatisfied orders for arrears arising out of this tenancy.

S. Webb
Member			

APPEARANCES:		
Applicants	Adam and Sarah Grimison	
First Respondent	No appearance	
Second Respondent	No appearance	

Reasons
Background
1.	These reasons have been requested by a third party John Myers. A document was provided by the renter Sanjeevan Baskaran authorising John Myers to represent him in this proceeding. 
2.	John Myers requested by email on 27 February 2025 that written reasons be provided for the decision of the Tribunal. This email was not before me on the day of the hearing and has been drawn to my attention subsequent to the determination. It is appropriate to provide written reasons for my decision given the request made prior to the hearing.
3.	The matter was listed for hearing on 28 February 2025 at Oakleigh VCAT. The residential rental providers attended the hearing in person. The renters did not attend the hearing. At the time of the hearing John Myers was not in attendance and the hearing proceeded in his and the renters’ absence.
4.	John Myers claims to have submitted evidence in relation to this application. John Myers was not in attendance to draw attention to the relevant aspects of the evidence that he had provided on behalf of Sanjeevan Baskaran. It is not clear from the electronic record of submissions what evidence John Myers is referring to.
5.	It is for the parties to make their case before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is not in a position to determine what information a party may wish to rely upon in relation to their position in the dispute. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to make any assumption regarding the evidence or argument to be made in relation to any particular position. Responding to relevant evidence and information adduced at the hearing is also an important element of any matter. This is relevant to this matter given the information made available from a related file.
6.	The Tribunal has before it a decision on a related file R2024/4322 regarding the end of the rental agreement between the residential renal providers and the renters. This includes a finding and orders relating to the rent owed on the rented premises at the time possession of the rented premises was ordered by the Tribunal to the residential rental providers. 
7.	The order of R2024/4322, which has not been set aside by a court, can be relied upon to make findings regarding the arrears owed at the end of the tenancy agreement, and orders relating to the bond and compensation that flow from that order.
8.	The renters entered into the property on 10 April 2023 and vacated in April 2024.
9.	A bond of $2,216.07 was provided.
10.	On 25 March 2024, VCAT heard an application for possession on related file R2024/4322. A representative of the applicants and the renters were in attendance at the hearing.
11.	Based on the evidence before it on R2024/4322, VCAT made an order of possession and directed the renters to vacate by 25 March 2024. VCAT found that the rent owed to that date was $8,409.35 and ordered the renters pay this amount to the residential rental provider. No order was made regarding the bond.
12.	The applicants lodged an application for bond and compensation arising from the rent arrears found to be owing and other costs that they had incurred after the renters had vacated. 
13.	At the hearing on 28 February 2025, the applicants confirmed that the renters had vacated the rented premises in April 2024. The applicants confirmed that the renters had not paid the rent owed pursuant to the order of 25 March 2024. The bond remained held by the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority.
14.	I confirmed with the applicants and determined from information available to the Tribunal that there had been no appeal of the VCAT decision on R2024/4322.
15.	Having determined that there had been no appeal of the decision on R2024/4322, I am satisfied that the order of VCAT for compensation for rent arrears stands, and that this order can be relied upon for the purpose of this application. 
16.	I find that the rent arrears for the rented premises are $8,409.35.
17.	Accordingly I find that the renters are required to pay the rent arrears owed on the rented premises as ordered by the Tribunal.
18.	The applicants claimed that the keys for the rented premises had not been returned to them when the renters vacated the rented premises. The renters provided an invoice from a locksmith for $1,144.00 for services rendered in changing the locks at the rented premises. It was the evidence of the applicants that the invoice had been paid.
19.	On the evidence before me I am satisfied that the applicants had incurred the cost of replacing the locks on the rented premises, and this was due to the renters failing to return the keys to the rented premises at the end of their tenancy.
20.	I find that compensation of $1,144.00 is owed by the renters for the replacement of the locks in the rented premises. 
21.	No other claims for compensation were pursued by the residential rental providers.
22.	Based on these two items of compensation found to be owed by the renters to the residential rental providers, I find that the renters are required to pay compensation to the residential rental providers the amount of $9,553.35.
23.	The Residential Tenancies Bond Authority (‘RTBA’) is presently holding an amount of $2,216.07 as the bond on the rented premises. Given the finding that $9,553.35 is required to be paid as compensation, an amount greater than the bond held by the RTBA, it is appropriate to order the RTBA to pay the bond to the residential rental provider in full.
24.	The balance of compensation owed by the renters to residential rental provider is $7,337.28, being the balance owed after the deduction of the bond. The renters are required to pay this amount to the residential rental providers.

S. Webb
Member