Landlord denied compo because meth use not covered by entry condition form

A landlord who said a tenant contaminated their house with methylamphetamine has had their appeal for more compensation for cleaning denied because they could not prove when the damage occurred.

Cassandra De Luca and the rental management company Housemark took William Reynolds to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Beenleigh, south of Brisbane, asking for $25,000 for what they claimed was widespread damage, but were only given $9552.

Claims for lawn maintenance, lock replacement, smoke alarm replacement, rubbish removal, and $7152 in unpaid rent were successful, but claims for the replacement of items impacted by meth use were refused.

They appealed the matter, but were denied again.

Senior tribunal member Michelle Lember said she was unable to overturn the original decision as there was no evidence Reynolds was responsible the damage.

“Although the tribunal accepted there was methylamphetamine contamination at the end of the tenancy, and evidence of use of methylamphetamine during the tenancy (syringes and glass pipes left on the tenancy), it was not clear on the evidence before the tribunal the contamination occurred during, rather than prior to, Mr Reynolds’ tenancy,” she said, referring to the initial decision.

While the entry condition report for the house described it as clean, there was no mention it was free of meth contamination, Lember said in her decision.

Reynolds did not provide material to the first hearing or the appeal, and did not attend either matter.

Lember said she could not overturn the decision “simply because a conclusion has been preferred to another possible view”.

“There is no error of law simply in making a wrong finding of fact unless there is no evidence to support that finding,” she said.

Lember said while the tribunal had accepted meth was used in the house during the tenancy, rental law dictated that tenants leave the premises in the same condition they were in at the start of the tenancy, with some wear and tear excepted.

“The success of the lessors’ claims therefore turned on whether they established that the property was not contaminated at the start of the tenancy, and the learned Adjudicator found that they did not,” she said.

Lember said the De Luca and Housemark could not argue the original decision was wrong, and denied the appeal.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.