VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
civil DIVISION
CIVIL CLAIMS LIST		VCAT REFERENCE NO. C1131/2021
CATCHWORDS	
Claim that the respondent’s cleaning caused damage to sofa and armchair – pre-existing damage – recovery only of the cleaning charge – Australian Consumer Law (Victoria) s 60, s 267(a).	

APPLICANT	Jack Wilson	
RESPONDENT	Sheroan Mariadas	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Senior Member A. Vassie	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	2 June 2021	
DATE OF ORDER	9 August 2021	
DATE OF REASONS	9 August 2021	
CITATION	Wilson v Mariadas (Civil Claims) [2021] VCAT 830	

Order

The respondent must pay to the applicant $110.00.

A. Vassie
Senior Member
APPEARANCES:		
For Applicant	In person	
For Respondent	In person	

Reasons

1.	The respondent Sharoan Mariadas is a sole trader who operates a cleaning business, which includes the business of cleaning carpets and upholstery.  The applicant Jack Wilson had a sofa and matching armchair which needed cleaning.  He engaged Mr Mariadas to do the cleaning, for which Mr Mariadas charged $110.00.  Mr Wilson claims that the attempt to clean damaged the sofa and the armchair.  In this proceeding he claimed compensation of $4,597.70.
2.	I heard the proceeding on 2 June 2021, by videoconference.  Mr Wilson and Mr Mariadas were the only witnesses.  Each was self-represented.
3.	An unusual feature of the case was that before Mr Wilson engaged the professional cleaner he attempted to clean the sofa and chair himself with the aid of a machine, and the result was a large stain and water mark left on each.  The respondent’s cleaning removed the stains and water marks but, according to Mr Wilson, caused fresh stains.
4.	Mr Wilson had purchased the sofa and chair on March 2013, for prices of $2,795.00 for the sofa and $1,395.00 for the chair.  He claimed those amounts plus the $110.00 that he had paid to Mr Mariadas.
5.	Before the hearing Mr Wilson had filed and served, as attachments to emails, photographs of the sofa and chair.  These black and white photographs showed the watermarks which had been left after Mr Wilson’s attempts to clean but did not show clearly the stains which he said had resulted from the respondent’s cleaning.  At the end of the hearing I directed Mr Wilson to file and serve, by 16 June 2021, hard copy colour photographs showing damage caused by the respondent.  He did file such photographs.
6.	The colour photographs showed a stain on the inside of an arm of the sofa, stains on two sofa cushions, stains on the front and side of either the other arm of the sofa or the arm of a chair (I could not tell which), a stain across the foot of the sofa, rust-coloured stains on buttons and a water mark around one of the buttons.  The rust-coloured stains were noticeable against the white background of the upholstery but the other stains were not so noticeable.
7.	By virtue of s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria) Mr Wilson had the benefit of a guarantee that the cleaning services of the respondent would be supplied to him with due care and skill.  The stains shown in the coloured photographs must have resulted either from a defective product used in the cleaning or from a fault in the application of the product.  In either case the guarantee was not met.  The respondent is liable to compensate Mr Wilson for any loss or damage he incurred when the guarantee was not met, if the damage was foreseeable: s 267(4) of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria).  The respondent could have foreseen that a failure to comply with the guarantee could damage the furniture.

8.	In the end I have not been able to tell whether the respondent’s cleaning of the sofa and chair left them in a worse condition than they had been in after Mr Wilson’s attempts to clean them had caused stains.  So he has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he suffered loss by reason of the furniture having been made less valuable or aesthetically pleasing as the result of the respondent’s services.  On the other hand Mr Wilson was entitled to expect that the services, for which he paid $110.00, would achieve a result that meant that there would be no stains.  He is entitled to a refund of the $110.00 which he paid, but to nothing more.  I make an order accordingly.
9.	If I had been satisfied that the respondent had left the furniture in a worse condition I would have awarded a modest sum of about $900.00 (20% of the purchase price of furniture which had been used for more than 7 years) for the aesthetic difference.
10.	As Mr Wilson has not substantially succeeded in this proceeding there is no basis for any order requiring the respondent to reimburse Mr Wilson for the filing fee which he paid to begin the proceeding.

A Vassie
Senior Member

9 August 2021