SACAT Hearing
Building in the CBD I rented an apartment in.
Today I had my scheduled hearing with SACAT that I made in relation to my rental property. The basis of the application was regarding the disrepair that the house I’m renting was in and the lack of response the landlord made to ensure the repairs were made.
I moved into a 2-bedroom apartment in the Adelaide CBD, after the breakdown of my marriage required me to setup a stable place to live while we sorted out the matter in the courts. I paid the bond and 2 weeks rent in advance to the amount of $480 per week. The apartment was listed as a furnished apartment and justified the price of the listing. When I viewed the apartment in April 2023 there was no power connected in the apartment which prevented the ability to test the appliances in the apartment and I questioned the agent at the inspection regarding the state of the appliances. The apartment was dated and had marks on the walls, grime on the ceiling,
From the moment I moved into the apartment the dilapidation of the property came to light time after time. It took a few days to get the electricity connected and after a bit of back and forth with the electric company, I found that the master switch was off at the main switchboard on the level where the meters were. Mildly frustrating as the power could have been turned on at any time and this was the only reason the power was switched off.
The washing machine with the broken latch
The first thing I noticed that was wrong was the state of the washing machine, it’s handle was broken and required a tool or risk an injury to open the door. It cut me a few times trying to open the door. When I notified the agent of this via their PropertyMe App, they did not address the issue. The issue around the washing machine remained unresolved for months, even after issuing a section 68 to the landlord, they refused to negotiate any sort of compensation. Other elements in the apartment included an Oven, rangehood and air-conditioner that didn’t work and also required the issuing of a section 68 to force the landlord to repair the items. These items didn’t work from the first day. I attempted to notify the agent via email, the PropertyMe application but they went unaddressed for many months.
There was a period in May where the toilets in the premises did not function and I had to turn the water off at the tap. This was because in one toilet it overflowed and flooded the bathroom and the other toilet leaked and would consume water endlessly. Noting this to the agent as priority they again failed to address this issue in a timely manner. This issue remained for two weeks and I had to use a bucket to fill the cistern in order to have the toilets flush waste. It wasn’t ideal but it was the only way I could do it. I’d take a bucket in the shower with me to collect water that I could use to flush with.
The landlord used a friend to do maintenance and this man they used would do handyman type work as a “side gig”, not as his primary job. He wasn’t a licensed electrician and could only work with low voltage lighting. He did do well with plumbing issues except it took him a few goes to stop the toilet from leaking. He was only available on weekends and this became inconvenient to me as I had my children stay with me on weekends. Given he wasn’t a licensed tradesman, I got the hint he probably didn’t have clearances that allowed him to work close to children. He may have had these but a “proper” tradesperson would have these in place as part of their employment. I wasn’t prepared to take the risk and thus refused to have maintenance on the weekends that I had the care of my children.
Corrosion on the showerhead
After the landlord refused to negotiate or show any signs of compliance with the maintenance of the apartment I felt it appropriate to lodge a case with SACAT to have the matter heard. I felt that I was entitled to some sort of compensation as I was paying rent for appliances that were not fit -for-purpose. The matter cost me $85 to have the matter listed and I had to provide evidence for the issues I was raising. This was all done through the website and wasn’t exactly straight forward and easy to do. It was difficult as a tenant to find the right application. I ended up doing the wrong one and applied for a decision around the bond return so when I finally got the matter paid for and before a case manager, it was then re-classified into the right area.
The process after the matter was accepted would be to give the evidence to the respondent (the landlord in this case, I was the applicant) and allow them 7 days for a right of reply. This would be to allow the landlord to negotiate an out-of-tribunal settlement, but the landlord actually filed a counter claim to have the lease terminated on the grounds of unreasonable financial hardship. The matter would eventually be listed for a hearing about 14 days later, 18th September 2023 at 9am.
Light fitting in the bathroom
I arrived at the tribunal in plenty of time, feeling a little nervous and dressed like I would go to the office. it’s like a court but not a court, just a little more casual than that. The agent was represented by the person I was communicating with through email for the issues and was on behalf of the landlord. It was presided over by 2 people, a chairperson type role who would address the concerns of the applicant in order and the then direct questions to the parties to gather more information. she was very interested in getting specific dates on events and something I should have prepared for better. Take that as a learning experience that my next lease, I will keep a better diary of events with more details. She addressed all my issues and challenged the agent on several occasions about their lack of response and reaffirmed their duty to the tenant. I felt as though the chairperson was fair and reasonable in their questioning and gave allowances to look up information to respond to her questions. She addressed the maintenance issues and also challenged me on the way I did things and another learning experience for me with tenancies is to use the section 68 form earlier in future.
After she was satisfied with the maintenance issues were dealt with the both parties agreed they were, she then moved onto the other areas that I wanted SACAT to make a decision on. I’ve placed a copy below of the matters I wanted SACAT to make a decision on below. She decided that she could not make a decision on the amount of compensation immediately but did confirm that I was entitled to some. I wouldn’t be getting the amount I was requesting, but that was to be expected. I did attempt to go higher than what I anticipated would be given so I would have a place to negotiate down from.
In the other areas I wanted addressed which included the costs of the matter being heard to be born by the landlord, that was dismissed. SACAT is a no cost court, so they do not rule on matters of costs for bringing the matter to the hearing. The final area to be addressed was the ability to terminate the lease and that was the counter-claim form the landlord too. This one was an interesting one as the landlord was claiming that my compensation request would put them into a financial hardship which the chairperson did not agree with. She was very pointed at the agent that it sounded like they wanted to terminate the lease because the tenant was exercising their right to have items repaired. This did not go down well for the agent and was a very bad look for the landlord as there was no just cause for this request since I’d always paid my rent on time and in full. She then turned to me and asked why I wanted to terminate the lease since all the issues had now been fixed. I wasn’t prepared for this question either and caught me a little off guard. My response was that I felt the landlord failed in their duty of care to the tenant and I had little to no confidence in the landlord repairing issues in the future and having to use section 68’s for all minor repairs. This was accepted and the chair was reluctant to intervene in a contract that had been signed for a set time period. She allowed a period of a brief adjournment to allow the agent to contact the landlord to get confirmation on some negotiated terms. Those negotiated terms were that the tenant give 28 days notice of termination (instead of 14 days) and that there be no costs burden to the tenant for breaking a lease early. The agent is also prohibited from listing the tenant negatively on any tenant database. The agent got the agreement from the landlord, and this was ruled as allowed by SACAT as I agreed to these terms too. The matter was then completed with the chairperson confirming their decision for compensation to be calculated upon and we’ll be notified after. The hearing ended about 11am and took about 2 hours to complete.
<I’ll put in the details of the ruling once I have it here>
The details of the complaint
The complaint that has required this matter coming to SACAT is.
The apartment was listed as a furnished apartment at $480 per week for a 2-bedroom apartment in Adelaide city.
The electricity was off at the time of inspection so there was no way to verify the items.
The apartment was not cleaned prior to the tenancy starting. See video for evidence.
The washing machine was broken and injured me while trying to use it.
I notified the agent, and this was not addressed until August on the presentation of a section 68.
I purchased a new washing machine so I could wash my clothing as the agent did not respond.
The Oven, Rangehood and Air conditioner do not work properly.
The agent was notified of this directly, via the repair man and via the incoming inspection report.
The agent did not address the issue until August after being issued with a section 68.
The Oven and Rangehood have been replaced.
The agent has told me they have a replacement washing machine but as I have purchased my own they are holding it at the office.
The air conditioner is still not replaced.
For 3 months of the tenancy, I had no working Oven, rangehood or Air conditioner.
There was no offer of compensation or dialogue around the washing machine issue that I had to rectify myself.
The landlord has declined to offer any compensation or acknowledgment of the inconvenience to the tenant.
I feel this is negligence on the landlord's behalf and in violation of the residential tenancy act.
The tenant has paid all rent on time and in full.
The tenant attempted to communicate with the agent using their preferred method of communication using the PropertyMe app.
Issues remain unresolved on the app for a period greater than 3 months.
The decisions requiring to be made.
I'm seeking the tribunal to make a decision on three aspects.
The landlord pay compensation to the tenant for the sum of 50% of the rent from the initial date of the tenancy until the date that all issues are completed.
The start date of the tenancy is 5/4/2023
The air conditioner is still not replaced
As at 29/08/2023 that's 21 Weeks or 10.5 fortnights
rent is $460 on the assumption of a furnished apartment
Total amount of rent paid to date is $9660
50% of $9660 = $4830
The tenant reserves the right to terminate the lease with 2 weeks' notice without prejudice.
I require time to find alternate accommodation and provide the agent with 2 weeks' notice of intention to terminate the current lease.
The agent provides positive commentary about the tenant
The agent to not list the tenant negatively on any tenant database
The agent to provide a reference to the tenants future landlords and agents
The landlord to compensate the tenant for the costs associated with bringing this case to the tribunal.
The direct costs associated with listing the case with SACAT
Compensation for time associated with bringing this matter to the tribunal
Time collating documents for SACAT and to the agent bringing issues to attention.
Time at the tribunal
Time responding to emails and correspondence relating to this matter
Estimated time to date has been 8 hours @ $65 per hour exGST not including time at the tribunal.