The landlord shouted at the woman; "Why are you following the plumber and interfering with the work? You should move out".
Both parties (whose names were suppressed) attended a Tenancy Tribunal hearing, with the assistance of a Korean interpreter.
The landlord said the woman shouted back and possibly louder than him. She said she would move out.
The woman said she felt insulted and scared from being yelled at and had told the landlord she would move out in two weeks' time.
She was unable to work due to the stress of needing to find other accommodation at short notice. The yelling match left her so upset she had to take two days' unpaid leave from her job.
She managed to find somewhere else to live a week later but said she wore out a tyre on her car driving around looking for a suitable place.
The landlord was initially content with the work done by a cleaner the tenant hired before she left the property but the woman ended up calling the cleaner back after the landlord made a closer inspection and said there were still things that needed attention.
By the time the cleaner returned, the landlord had cleaned those things himself.
The tenant applied to the tribunal for compensation for a replacement tyre [$296], mental distress [$354], moving out costs [$200], and as reimbursement for cleaning costs [$300]. She also sought a week's rent refund.
The landlord cross-applied for compensation for carpet replacement, painting costs, and cleaning costs.
Tenancy adjudicator Joon Yi granted the tenants' claim for mental distress.
He acknowledged both parties were involved and that there had been no major incident for almost five years.
But there was an inherent power imbalance between the landlord and the tenant and the landlord was wrong to yell at her to move out, Yi said.
He rejected the tenant's claim for a new tyre finding it was only a coincidence the tyre wore out while she was driving around looking for a new rental property.
Yi also rejected the tenant's claims for moving out costs and a week's rent and partially rejected her claim for cleaning costs.
He said despite the pair's heated argument at the time, it was clear they agreed to a two-week termination period for the tenancy.
There was no basis on which the tenant could seek moving out costs.
He said both parties were at fault over the cleaning issue and ordered the landlord to reimburse the tenant $150 for the extra costs she incurred.
Yi also rejected the landlord's cross-application, saying there was no evidence to support his claim the tenant caused water damage to carpet near the bathroom and inside a bathroom wall.
He ordered the tenant to pay $100 of the $460 sought by the landlord for cleaning, including removal of mould from the bathroom door.
Granting name suppression to both parties, Yi said there was no public interest in identifying them given their otherwise long-standing, amicable relationship.
