The tenant argued that the notice was retaliatory on the basis that it was issued to him shortly after he indicated to the landlord that he may make an application to the Tribunal regarding repairs. He also disputed that his application for compensation should be dismissed because it failed to place appropriate weight on the length of time that the property had been in poor condition and the significant power imbalance for a tenant in his situation.

The landlord disputed that the notice was retaliatory and provided evidence that his circumstances had changed such that he now required the property for his son to reside in. He also did not agree with the tenant's claims for compensation on the basis that the tenant had obstructed his access to the property to undertake repairs and that he did not adequately communicate the urgency of the repairs.

• The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord served the notice of termination partly in response to the tenant's complaints about the condition of the property, and his communication to the landlord that unless those issues were addressed, then he may apply to the Tribunal;
• Even if the landlord's decision to serve the notice of termination is solely or partly motivated by the tenant's expressed intention to take action to enforce their rights, or their actions in doing so; the Tribunal has a discretion to decide whether or not the notice is of no effect;
• In determining whether to make an order that a notice is of no effect, the Tribunal should consider the reliability of the evidence provided by each party in support of their case, and the reasonableness of their position;
• The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord served the notice of termination so that his son could move in, and the evidence demonstrated why this was necessary;
• The Tribunal agrees with the determination in the original Order that the notice should not be declared to be of no effect;
• The Tribunal concluded that the landlord is in breach of the obligation under section 68 RTA and the tenant has suffered loss or inconvenience as a result. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant has communicated effectively with the landlord about this inconvenience or loss or mitigated his loss in certain regards, and the length of time he resided in the property was a significant factor in assessing his inconvenience or loss;
• The Tribunal agrees with the determination in the original Order that the tenant should not be awarded compensation for inconvenience or loss arising from the landlord's breach of the obligation under section 68 RTA;
• The Tribunal considers that the landlord's attendance at the property without consent, and his attempt to enter the property, constitutes a breach of the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment as a result of which the tenant suffered inconvenience, and therefore will order compensation of $500.00;
• Subject to that determination, the Tribunal considers that the original Order is the correct or preferable order, and the Tribunal will affirm it.

Internal review - Residential tenancy - Tenant application - Termination and vacant possession - Notice of termination - Whether notice retaliatory

Internal review - Tenant application - Compensation - Obligation to repair - Duty to act with reasonable diligence - Tenant's entitlement - Quiet enjoyment - Failure of tenant to take steps to mitigate loss

Residential Tenancies Act 1995 ss 65, 68, 78, 90A, 110

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 70

Kingsley and Thorne v Living Choice Woodcroft [2017] SACAT 16

South Australian Housing Authority v Ivancic [2020] SACAT 115

Tronnolone v Edwards & Bryan [2016] SACAT 27

Varricchio v Wentzel [2016] SASC 86

1. This is an application for the review of an order made by the Tribunal on 24 June 2025 in matter number 2025/SH005552 (the original Order).
2. In the original Order, the Tribunal dealt with an application by the applicant tenant Mr Bradley (Mr Bradley) seeking orders:
   • Declaring that a notice of termination is of no effect because it is retaliatory under section 90A Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (the RTA); and
   • Granting compensation due to the respondent landlord's breaches of the RTA.
3. In the original Order, the Tribunal refused to make a declaration that the notice of termination is of no effect because it is retaliatory and dismissed the application for compensation.
4. Mr Bradley has sought a review.
5. An application for review is made under section 70 South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the SACAT Act). Under section 70 SACAT Act, the Tribunal must make the correct or preferable decision taking into account the evidence before the Tribunal at the original hearing, giving appropriate weight to the original Order, and taking into account any other evidence the Tribunal considers is relevant and appropriate to take into account in the course of the review process. An application for review necessarily includes an application for leave.

1. The Tribunal conducted a directions hearing on 3 July 2025, and issued directions permitting the parties to lodge further submissions and any further evidence in support of their respective positions.
2. Mr Bradley made a written submission.
3. Mr Markos did not make a written submission, but he provided a franchise agreement and business cards, and a photo of the hot water service, which he asked the Tribunal to take into account in response to Mr Bradley's claims concerning repairs and compensation. I will exercise my discretion under section 70(4) SACAT Act to accept those documents and the photo into evidence.
4. Mr Markos has lodged an application for vacant possession (that application was made after the original Order was made and before the full hearing of this application for internal review). That application will be listed for hearing once this matter has been determined.

1. Mr Bradley moved into the property described above (the property) in about 2002. Another person was living in the property at the time. That person moved out and Mr Bradley has been living in the property ever since. He currently resides in the property with his partner.
2. There is no written tenancy agreement for the arrangement between the parties, but no one disputes that there is a residential tenancy agreement between them. Mr Bradley pays rent of $400 per week. There is no bond lodged for this tenancy.
3. In March this year Mr Bradley reported an issue with the hot water service, and on 7 April this year he reported an issue with the kitchen sink leaking.
4. There were further communications between the parties concerning repairs and cupboard measurements for the kitchen. On 23 April 2025 Mr Bradley sent an email to Mr Markos requesting for repairs to be carried out by licensed/qualified tradespersons. The email states:

"I would prefer not to escalate this matter or lodge a formal claim through SACAT."

5. On 28 April 2025, Mr Markos served a Form 7 notice of termination (the notice) requiring Mr Bradley to vacate the property on 30 June 2025.
6. The notice states that Mr Markos is providing Mr Bradley with 60 days' notice of the termination of the tenancy because Mr Markos requires the property for his own occupation, the occupation of his spouse, child or parent, or the occupation of the property by his child or parent's spouse. The Form 7 notice of termination is accompanied by a statutory declaration of Mr Markos.
7. Mr Bradley did not vacate the property. On 19 May 2025, he made an application to the Tribunal seeking orders as outlined above. Mr Bradley's application resulted in the original Order being made. That is the order of which he now seeks a review.
8. In summary, Mr Bradley's grounds of review are:
   • Mr Bradley was overwhelmed by the Tribunal hearing on 24 June 2025, and he felt that he did not have an adequate opportunity to state his case to the Tribunal.
   • The notice of termination is clearly retaliatory, and the Tribunal should have found the notice to have no effect.
   • The Tribunal's determination that the application for compensation should be dismissed due to his failure to mitigate his loss is unfair because it failed to place appropriate weight on the very poor condition of the property, the length of time for which the property had been in that condition and the significant power imbalance for a tenant in his situation, in taking action to enforce their rights in this regard.

1. In making a determination as to whether or not the original Order is the correct or preferable order, there are two discrete issues to consider:

a) Should the Tribunal make an order to declare that the notice of termination has no effect? > > b) Should the Tribunal make an order for compensation in favour of Mr Bradley?

Question 1: Should the Tribunal make an order to declare that the notice of termination has no effect?

1. In summary, section 90A RTA relevantly states that a tenant may apply to the Tribunal seeking a declaration that a notice of termination has no effect. Section 90A(3) states that such a determination may be made where the Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord was wholly or partly motivated to give the notice for any of the following reasons:

a) The tenant had applied or proposed to apply to the Tribunal for an order; > > b) The tenant had taken or proposed to take any other action to enforce a right of the tenant under the residential tenancy agreement, the RTA or any other law; > > c) An order of the Tribunal was in force in relation to the landlord or tenant.

2. Therefore, there are two issues to decide in an application of this kind:
   • Does the matter fall within any of the circumstances described in section 90A(3) RTA?
   • If so, in all the circumstances, should the Tribunal declare the notice of termination of no effect?

1. Mr Bradley submitted that the notice of termination is retaliatory because of the circumstances leading up to the notice:
   • There had been discussions between him and Mr Markos about repairs and a rent increase in the months leading up to the notice being served.
   • In the course of these discussions, Mr Bradley made it clear to Mr Markos that he considered that any suggestion of a rent increase was unreasonable in the context of a history of repairs not having been carried out at the property, and in particular, due to the recent defects requiring repair of which Mr Bradley had made Mr Markos aware.
   • In the course of these discussions, Mr Bradley said to Mr Markos that repairs that had been carried out were inadequate because they had not been carried out by qualified tradespeople.
   • Tensions between Mr Bradley and Mr Markos were rising, and on 23 April 2025 he mentioned for the first time to Mr Markos that he was considering making an application to the Tribunal.
   • Within a few days, he had received the notice of termination.
2. Mr Bradley submitted that the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to find the notice of termination is of no effect because:
   • He disputes the reasons given by Mr Markos for serving the notice - in particular, he suggests that there are other places where Mr Markos' son could live.
   • The service of the notice is particularly unfair given the longstanding poor condition of the property, and the fact that he has discharged his obligations as a tenant for many years.
   • He is a disadvantaged person with no family support, it will take him some time to find alternative accommodation.
3. Mr Markos disputed Mr Bradley's claims. He submitted that:
   • There had been no discussions between the parties about a rent increase in the lead up to him issuing the notice of termination.
   • He acknowledged that he needs to carry out repairs at the property and he has found Mr Bradley obstructive in failing to provide him with access to the property so that he could carry out the repairs.
4. However, Mr Markos said that the Tribunal should not declare the notice of termination of no effect because he has genuine reasons for serving the notice of termination:
   • He is in financial difficulty due to his separation from his wife, and he is not able to afford to pay for all of the outgoings of the property any longer - his son George has agreed to move in and to pay for all of the outgoings;
   • His son George also has nowhere else to live at the moment, and so he needs the property back so that George has somewhere to live.

1. In the original Order, Member Harvey found that the notice may be retaliatory because of Mr Bradley having made the suggestion that he may apply to the Tribunal just a few days before the notice was served.
2. I agree with this assessment. I am satisfied that Mr Markos served the notice of termination partly in response to Mr Bradley's complaints about the condition of the property, and his communication to Mr Markos that unless those issues were addressed, then he may apply to the Tribunal.
3. Accordingly, in my assessment, the circumstances of this matter fall within section 90A(3)(a) RTA.

Issue 2: In all the circumstances, should the Tribunal declare the notice of termination of no effect?

1. Even if the landlord's decision to serve the notice of termination is solely or partly motivated by the tenant's expressed intention to take action to enforce their rights, or their actions in doing so, and section 90A(3) RTA applies; under section 90A(1)(a) RTA, the Tribunal has a discretion to decide whether or not the notice is of no effect.
2. The RTA does not specify the factors to be taken into account when exercising the discretion under section 90A(1)(a) RTA. Therefore, the Tribunal must exercise the discretion under section 90A(1)(a) RTA:
   • According to the law - by reference to the scope and purpose of the RTA;
   • By making an objective assessment of the evidence - not on the basis of personal opinion;
   • With reasoning that is consistent with the purposes of the RTA and the purposes of the relevant provision.
3. The Tribunal must take into account all of the evidence which is relevant, and must not take into account evidence which is not relevant.
4. The Tribunal must make an objective assessment as to whether or not an order should be made that the notice of termination is of no effect. This requires the Tribunal to weigh the evidence and submissions of the parties. The Tribunal should give weight to evidence which is reliable, and to submissions which are reasonable and consistent with the evidence.
5. For example, if a landlord is claiming that the notice is not retaliatory, then what evidence do they have in support of the ground of termination and how reliable is that evidence. If a tenant says that the landlord actually issued the notice for a reason other than the reason stated in the notice, and the real reason for issuing the notice is retaliatory, what evidence does the tenant have in support of their argument, and how reliable is it.
6. In making an assessment about the reasonableness of the parties' positions, in the context of whether or not to declare the notice of no effect, the Tribunal should take into account all of the relevant circumstances. It is notable that the legislation allows the Tribunal a discretion even if the Tribunal has formed the view that the notice is entirely retaliatory.[1]
7. In other words, the legislation envisages that there may be matters in which the Tribunal refuses to declare a notice of no effect, even where the Tribunal has determined that the notice was wholly motivated by one of the factors listed in section 90A(3) RTA. The Tribunal may determine that the notice was retaliatory, but in all the circumstances, it is reasonable for the tenancy to be terminated and so the notice should not be declared of no effect.
8. In this matter, a significant issue is whether Mr Markos' reasons for serving the notice of termination, are genuine. I have carefully considered the parties' evidence and submissions about this, and I have concluded that Mr Markos did serve the notice of termination at least partly because he wanted possession of the property so that his son George could move back in, for the following reasons:

a) George has nowhere else to live. George attended the review hearing. He gave evidence (under affirmation) that he is currently living with a friend. He said that he is unable to live with his mother because of tensions arising from his parents' separation. He is unable to live with his father as Mr Markos is in the process of moving house due to his separation, and the house in which he lives is not suitable for George to also live in. I accept this evidence. > > b) Mr Bradley argued that there were other options which would have been available to George, such as moving into the adjacent property, which Mr Bradley believed was owned by Mr Markos (or Mr Markos and his wife). The Tribunal's enquiries about the ownership of the adjacent property supported the evidence of Mr Markos that it is owned by his wife. I accept Mr Markos' submission that as a result of their separation, he will have no rights of ownership over that property. I accept George's evidence that due to the tension with his mother (arising from the separation of his parents), he is not able to move into that property. > > c) Mr Markos' recent separation from his wife means that he will be the sole owner of the property and solely responsible for the outgoings. He says that he cannot meet those outgoings on the basis of the rent paid by Mr Bradley, but George has agreed to move in and pay for all outgoings. I consider it is unlikely that Mr Markos would lie about separating from his wife. It follows that Mr Markos and his wife will be involved in negotiations about a property settlement. In these circumstances, it would not be uncommon for the parties to be under financial pressure at least until those arrangements are finalised. Therefore, I accept that this is a second reason why Mr Markos seeks possession of the property, so that George can move back in.

9. I have found that the notice of termination falls within section 90A(3) RTA because it is clear that the parties were in strong disagreement about Mr Bradley's complaints concerning defects requiring repair. There is no dispute that Mr Bradley stated his intention to make an application to the Tribunal if they were unable to resolve the dispute.
10. In my view, the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to a very low point because of the dispute about repairs, and it was unlikely to resolve without the intervention of the Tribunal (or some other independent body).
11. However, I am also satisfied that Mr Markos served the notice of termination so that he can have vacant possession of the property, so that his son George can move in. Mr Markos and George have given evidence about their circumstances which provide a reasonable explanation as to why that is necessary.
12. On balance, taking into account all of the evidence and submissions of the parties about this issue, I do not agree with Mr Bradley's submission that the notice should be declared of no effect. I agree with the determination in the original Order in this regard.

Question 2: Should the Tribunal make an order for compensation in favour of Mr Bradley?

1. Mr Bradley claimed that Mr Markos had acted in breach of his obligation under the RTA to use reasonable diligence to carry out repairs to defects of which he was aware or should have been aware, and he had acted in breach of the obligation under the RTA to provide Mr Bradley with quiet enjoyment of the property. He claimed compensation because of the impact those breaches have had on him.

1. Section 68(1) RTA requires the landlord to ensure that the premises are in a reasonable state of repair at the commencement of the tenancy and to keep them in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age, character and prospective life. The landlord will be in breach of this obligation if there is a defect in the premises which ought reasonably to have been apparent upon an inspection at that point.[2]
2. Once the tenancy has commenced, a landlord is not responsible for defects which arise subsequently unless the landlord is aware of the defect or ought to be aware of the defect and this is a different standard from that which applies at the commencement of the tenancy.[3] Once notified of the defect (and assuming the defect does not arise from the negligent or intentional actions of the tenant), a landlord will be in breach of the obligation if it is established that the landlord failed to act with reasonable diligence to repair the defect.
3. Section 68(2) RTA states that a landlord will not be in breach of the obligation to repair unless the landlord has notice of the defect, and fails to act with reasonable diligence to have the defect repaired.
4. Section 65 RTA states that a tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property without interruption by the landlord and the landlord will not cause or permit an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in the tenant's use of the premises.
5. Where a landlord is in breach of the obligation under section 68 RTA or the obligation under section 65 RTA, then the tenant may claim compensation for loss or inconvenience arising from that breach.
6. The Tribunal's general approach is that any amount of compensation to be awarded is not determined in accordance with any set scale or formula. The amount of any compensation to be awarded is a global amount taking into account all of the factors in the particular dispute.[4] The Tribunal has power to award compensation for inconvenience or financial loss,[5] but not distress or loss of enjoyment of the property. A tenant cannot claim compensation for personal injury (such as stress or another medical condition).[6]
7. Section 78 of the RTA applies the common law principles about mitigation of loss to any claim for compensation arising from a breach of a residential tenancy agreement. Therefore, in making such a claim a tenant is required to take reasonable steps to mitigate any loss and is not entitled to compensation for damage that could have been avoided by those steps.
8. Accordingly, in relation to each aspect of Mr Bradley's application in this regard, the following questions arise:

a) Is Mr Markos in breach of his obligations under the RTA?

b) If so, has Mr Bradley suffered loss or inconvenience as a result of the breach?

1. If so, should Mr Bradley be awarded compensation, taking into account whether or not he has taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss?

The obligation under section 68 RTA to ensure that the property is in a reasonable state of repair at the commencement of the tenancy, and to maintain the property

Issue 1: Was Mr Markos in breach of his obligations under section 68 RTA?

a) He has lived at the property for 17 years, and he has made numerous requests for repairs over the years. Annexed is a schedule setting out long term plumbing defects requiring repair. In his written submissions, Mr Bradley has referred to other defects which require repair including: > > * Damage to the roof; > * Damage to the ceilings; > * Electrical compliance; > * Leaking gutters; > * Damage to the fence; > * Damage to the fly screens on the windows. > > b) The property has been gradually deteriorating over the period of his tenancy due to the lack of repairs, and in its current condition it is probably not safe for occupation - there are some structural defects which require maintenance (such as the bathroom). The extent of the plumbing repairs necessary at the property is evidenced by a plumbing report obtained by Mr Bradley which has been provided to the Tribunal. Mr Bradley is also concerned that the plumbing and wiring are non-compliant, and are actually dangerous for anyone at the property. > > c) Mr Bradley has made multiple verbal reports about the defects, and Mr Markos has regularly attended at the property for various purposes, and some of the defects would have been evident to him when he was there (for example, the crumbling walls, the sagging ceiling in the bathroom, the damage to the fence and the fly screens.) > > d) When he has raised the issues with Mr Markos, the response has often been hostile, and unsympathetic. > > e) Mr Markos has carried out some of the repairs himself. Mr Bradley says that any such repairs have been inadequate (such as leaking taps), and he is also concerned about issues of non-compliance. He has asked Mr Markos to have a qualified tradesperson carry out repairs, but Mr Markos has refused. Mr Markos has not carried out urgent repairs urgently, such as the repair to a blocked toilet. > > f) For his own safety and the safety of others at the house, Mr Bradley has been forced to carry out some repairs himself (eg to the pergola).

a) Mr Bradley has prevented Mr Markos from attempts to carry out repairs at the property - for example, in 2019 he carried out repairs to the adjacent property, and he sought access to the property to paint and for the kitchen and plumbing to be updated, but Mr Bradley refused to allow access as it was not convenient for him. > > b) Mr Bradley did not make the urgency of certain repairs clear to him and in relation to the blocked toilet, Mr Markos attended at the property and made an initial assessment. He arranged for repairs to be carried out at a later point, when it became clear they were necessary. > > c) Mr Markos has carried out some repairs at the property. He disagrees that he is not qualified to carry out some of those repairs himself, and he referred to his maintenance business. He acknowledges that the property requires further repairs, but Mr Bradley is preventing him from carrying out those repairs by refusing him access. He says this is unreasonable.

Issue 2: Has Mr Bradley suffered loss or inconvenience as a result of the breach?

1. Mr Bradley submitted that he has suffered loss - for example, in his written submissions, he estimates that he has spent approximately $3,670 in labour and parts, in fixing the taps. He also provided a plumbing report to identify the extent of the work to be done at the property, at his own cost. In his written submissions, Mr Bradley has referred to the impact of the lack of maintenance on his health, comfort and sense of security. In his written submissions, Mr Bradley has also referred to his concerns about the safety of repairs carried out by Mr Markos, and whether or not they are compliant.
2. Mr Bradley submitted that he has been inconvenienced, for example:
   • By having to use public toilets when their toilet was blocked, as Mr Markos did not fix the problem quickly enough.
   • By having to modify how he uses basic amenities in the house to accommodate items that do not work (for example, the basin in the bathroom only has 1 tap which works and that is a hot tap and he has been unable to use the cold water tap in the kitchen).
   • By having to carry out repairs himself (for example, to the pergola).
3. Mr Markos disputes the claim for compensation on the basis of his failure to carry out repairs to defects which have been notified to him. He says that:
   • The communication about the toilet did not make it clear that the issue was urgent; he attended at the property and made an initial assessment and then arranged further repairs when the issue did become urgent.
   • He has carried out some repairs and he would have carried out more repairs if he had been able to do so, but due to the lack of cooperation from Mr Bradley, he has been unable to do that.

Issue 3: Should Mr Bradley be awarded compensation taking into account whether or not he has taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss?

1. In his claim, Mr Bradley sought compensation of $40,000. He explained this as follows in his written submissions:

1. In his submissions about this issue, Mr Bradley says:

Rather than attempt to itemise every instance of disrepair, I have estimated compensation based on the overall impact these categories had on the value of the tenancy. This assessment is grounded in the fact that I have paid approximately $200,000 in rent over the course of the tenancy. The amounts claimed represent a proportion of that total, reflecting the substantial loss of amenity, the burden of unlawful repair practices, costs incurred and the long-term failure to meet basic legal standards of property maintenance. This compensation claim is, in my view, modest given the prolonged breaches, their seriousness, and the cumulative harm caused. It represents a just and proportionate response to the diminished value of the tenancy and the burdens I have endured as a result

2. Mr Markos disputes the claim for compensation. He says that:
   • He has suggested to Mr Bradley on multiple occasions, that if he is unhappy with the condition of the property, then he should move out;
   • He has offered to carry out repairs and refurbishment at the property, but Mr Bradley has denied him access - for example, for the refurbishment work in 2019; and more recently, unless he has a qualified tradesperson to do the work;
   • It is only now, after he has served the notice of termination, that Mr Bradley is raising these issues.

My conclusions about the claim for compensation for breach of the obligation under Section 68 of the RTA

1. In his application, Mr Bradley has raised issues which are not appropriate to consider in an application about a landlord's breach of section 68 RTA, for example:
   • Potential risks to the health and safety of the occupants;
   • Potential compliance issues;
   • Potential structural issues.
2. These are issues which go beyond the scope of section 68 RTA and Mr Bradley should have raised them with the Housing Safety Authority (the HSA). Issues such as electrical compliance, or other compliance issues, and structural defects, are issues for which the HSA is responsible under the Housing Improvement Act 2016.
3. Although Mr Bradley submitted that he had raised these defects with Mr Markos on a number of occasions, verbally; without anything in writing (even a text message), I cannot be certain about the content of those communications: whether they made the nature of the issue clear, whether they expressed any view about urgency and how often they were reported. However, I accept Mr Bradley's submission that many of the defects should have been readily apparent when Mr Markos attended at the property.
4. I am satisfied that Mr Markos is in breach of his obligation under section 68 RTA to use reasonable diligence to carry out repairs to the following items:
   • The taps;
   • The kitchen cupboards and the cupboards in the bathroom;
   • The drain in the sink in the kitchen;
   • Even if there was some structural defect in the ceiling and walls in the bathroom, the cracks in the walls of the bathroom should have been repaired, and the sagging ceiling in the bathroom should have been repaired - the walls and the ceiling should have been repainted;
   • The rotting timber in the house should have been replaced;
   • The fence should have been repaired;
   • The rusted bathroom vanity unit should have been replaced;
   • Damaged fly screens on the windows should have been replaced.
5. Mr Bradley's submissions about the loss or inconvenience experienced by him as a result of the breaches, were not particularly clear. He was more focussed on health and safety hazards, and compliance factors. However, I accept that he has experienced some loss for example, in the cost of some minor repair parts, and he has experienced inconvenience for example, the cracks and crumbling walls in the bathroom may allow insects to enter, and would create debris to clean up; the damaged fly screens are likely to have allowed insects into the property; not having functional hot and cold taps in the bathroom and kitchen, would be inconvenient for any person.
6. However, I consider the lack of written communications between Mr Bradley and Mr Markos about the necessity for repairs (until relatively recently), is problematic for Mr Bradley. Even accepting that Mr Bradley has notified Mr Markos about defects which require repair, and even on the basis that many of the defects should have been self-evident, the lack of written communications suggests that the defects are not causing Mr Bradley any significant inconvenience, and that there is no urgency. This lack of clarity is illustrated by the text messages from Mr Bradley's partner, to Mr Markos about the need for the toilet to be repaired. Although Mr Bradley said that the repairs were urgent and this was communicated to Mr Markos, that is not the tenor of that communication.
7. In addition, I consider that some of the issues raised by Mr Bradley are unlikely to have caused him any real inconvenience (such as the damage to the fence).
8. I consider that Mr Bradley has failed to mitigate his loss in the following ways:

a) In addition to his right to make an application to the Tribunal, Mr Bradley could have pursued other options, for example: > > * He should have reported health, safety and structural issues to the HSA; > * Under section 68(3) RTA, he could have carried out repairs himself if a defect was inconvenient or likely to result in personal injury, and then sought reimbursement from the landlord.

In the review hearing, Mr Bradley said that he was not aware of the various options available to him. It is up to a tenant to make their own enquiries about these issues. There is a reasonable amount of information readily available on the Consumer and Business Services website for a tenant.

b) He has not cooperated when Mr Markos offered to carry out repairs and refurbishment - such as in 2019. In the review hearing, Mr Bradley said that this was an issue that was raised with him at short notice and he did not feel that he had adequate time to consider it or information about the offer. If Mr Bradley really wanted repairs carried out, he would have tried to be accommodating about such an offer.

Mr Bradley also refused to provide access to Mr Markos in April 2025, due to inadequate notice about the repairs and Mr Markos' decision not to attend with a tradesperson. A landlord must give 48 hours' notice of attendance at the property for the purpose of repairs at the request of a tenant, but a tenant is not entitled to require a landlord to attend with a tradesperson.

1. He could have found somewhere else to live. This was a periodic tenancy, and so it was very easy for Mr Bradley to terminate the agreement between himself and Mr Markos by providing 21 days' notice in writing.[7]

Throughout this process, Mr Bradley has referred to his preference for housing security, and the power imbalance between him and Mr Markos. It is understandable that a tenant will place some priority on the security of their accommodation, and they may be reluctant to raise issues about repairs with a landlord because of a fear about the response of the landlord, including the possibility that the landlord may serve a notice of termination.

However, Mr Bradley has been in the property for over 20 years. While I accept that it is expensive for a tenant to move, and in the current rental market, it can be challenging for a new tenant to find a new property; nevertheless, that is an extremely long time for a tenant to remain in a property if the tenant is experiencing a significant degree of inconvenience and loss due to the unrepaired defects there.

1. I have concluded that Mr Markos is in breach of the obligation under section 68 RTA, and Mr Bradley has suffered loss or inconvenience as a result. However, I am not satisfied from the evidence that Mr Bradley has communicated effectively with Mr Markos about his inconvenience or loss. The length of time for which Mr Bradley has remained in the property must be a significant factor in making an assessment of the extent of any inconvenience he has experienced. In addition, Mr Bradley has failed to mitigate his loss in multiple ways identified above.
2. For these reasons, I agree with the determination in the original Order, that Mr Bradley should not be awarded compensation for inconvenience or loss arising from Mr Markos' breach of the obligation under section 68 RTA.

The obligation to provide Mr Bradley with quiet enjoyment of the property

1. In summary, Mr Bradley says that Mr Markos is in breach of his right to quiet enjoyment by failing to provide proper notice of inspections or attendances at the property to carry out repairs, and Mr Markos' requests for Mr Bradley to assist him to carry out the repairs, or to lend him tools when he attends to carry out repairs. Mr Bradley has described Mr Markos as being aggressive towards him in their communications about repairs.
2. In his written submissions, Mr Bradley described a recent incident as follows:
   • On 23 April 2025, Mr Markos attended at his property unannounced demanding that Mr Bradley take further measurements (for new kitchen cupboards);
   • Mr Bradley said that he found this attendance aggressive and intimidating and he refused to do as Mr Markos asked;
   • He then sent an email to Mr Markos stating that any repairs needed to be carried out by qualified tradespeople;
   • That evening, Mr Markos said that he would be attending at the property the following day;
   • Mr Bradley responded saying that Mr Markos should provide proper notice;
   • On the following day, Mr Markos attended and attempted to access the property through the back door, shouting Mr Bradley's name;
   • Mr Bradley told Mr Markos to leave the property, and he called the police.
3. Mr Markos disputes this aspect of the claim. He says that Mr Bradley was denying him access to the property and he was trying to make arrangements to have urgent repairs carried out. Mr Markos denied that he had requested Mr Bradley to assist him with carrying out the repairs, or that he had asked to borrow his tools.

My conclusions about the claim for breach of the right to quiet enjoyment

1. There are two underlying principles that must be applied when dealing with any application about a claim that a person's right to quiet enjoyment has been breached:
   • The test to be applied is an objective test; and
   • The breach must be substantial.[8]
2. This was also the approach taken by his Honour Justice Parker (formerly President of SACAT) in the matter of Kingsley and Thorne v Living Choice Woodcroft.[9]
3. When giving evidence in the review hearing, Mr Bradley said that he is a "compliant sort of person", by way of explanation about him having assisted Mr Markos with some repair work around the property. If Mr Bradley has agreed to do something, even reluctantly, he cannot later claim that action was in breach of his rights. He could simply have said no. I am not satisfied that Mr Markos has acted in breach of Mr Bradley's right to quiet enjoyment in relation to that issue, or Mr Bradley's claims that Mr Markos required him to provide tools.
4. Generally, I consider that if a landlord attends without proper notice of an inspection, then the tenant can refuse to allow them to enter and if this occurs once or twice, it is not a breach of the right to quiet enjoyment. However, if this occurred on multiple occasions, it may be a breach.
5. It is more serious when a landlord attends and tries to gain access without the tenant's consent. Although Mr Markos denied this had occurred in April 2025, I consider it is likely, given that Mr Bradley called the police to intervene.
6. I do not have sufficient evidence to be satisfied that this was a pattern of behaviour during the tenancy, but even a single incident is reasonably serious, if the police are called. Even if Mr Bradley had been acting in an irritating manner and making requests he was not entitled to make, and even if Mr Markos was under significant pressure (for example, due to his separation from his wife), that behaviour cannot be excused.
7. For these reasons, I consider that Mr Markos' attendance at the property without consent, and his attempt to enter the property in April 2025, constitutes a breach of Mr Bradley's right to quiet enjoyment as a result of which Mr Bradley suffered inconvenience.
8. Therefore, I will order compensation of $500.00 for this breach.
9. Subject to that determination, I consider that the original Order is the correct or preferable order, and I will affirm it.

1. The Tribunal grants leave to apply for internal review.
2. Subject to Order 3, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review (made on 24 June 2025 in matter number 2025/SH005552).
3. The respondent landlord must pay compensation of $500.00 to the applicant tenant. This will be done by crediting that amount to the rent record.

• The kitchen and bathroom taps have been leaking continuously and failing repeatedly for 18 years.
• The hot water tap at the kitchen sink is currently the only viable sink tap in the unit.
• The bathroom ceiling is sagging and threatens to collapse. It rains debris and exposes me to the potential for serious injury.
• The kitchen and bathroom cupboards are significantly deteriorated due to water damage.
• There is a pervasive stench of damp mould and decay throughout the house due to water leaks.
• The shower is corroded, and the shower/bath diverter wall connection point is leaking.
• The hot water system is unreliable and leaking.
• There have been repeated failures to fix the toilet before it became unusable.
• The gutter above the entrance to the outdoor toilet leaks profusely.
• The shed roof leaks profusely, damaging my work, tools and health.
• There is serious structural instability of the perimeter fence, side gate and pergola, all with potential to cause injury.
• There is widespread serious disrepair of property fixtures and infrastructure.

[1] An example of when that may occur, could be a dispute involving significant repairs - if the Tribunal decided that the matter fell within section 90A(3) RTA, and the notice was entirely retaliatory, the Tribunal may still decide on an objective assessment that there are substantial repairs to be carried out at the property, those repairs cannot be carried out while the tenant lives there, and even taking into account the tenant's arguments against such a determination, the Tribunal may decide not to find the notice of no effect.

[2] Varricchio v Wentzel [2016] SASC 86 at para 47.

[3] Varricchio v Wentzel at paras 54-56.

1. [4] This was the approach taken in Varricchio v Wentzel and confirmed by Parker J in Tronnolone v Edwards & Bryan [2016] SACAT 27 at para 17.

[5] Per Justice Parker's decision in Tronnolone v Edwards & Bryan.

[8] South Australian Housing Authority v Ivancic [2020] SACAT 115.

1. [9] [2017] SACAT 16 - which dealt with an application by residents in a retirement village against the operator of the retirement village on the basis that the operator of the retirement village was in breach of their obligation to provide quiet enjoyment of their respective properties to the residents, due to the noise of other residents at social gatherings.