Clarke v Director of Housing (Residential Tenancies) [2017] VCAT 1413

1. The claims for compensation in the application have been proven in the amounts shown (all other claims being dismissed):

Landlords' failure to maintain premises allowed at $115.00.

1. Order the landlord to pay to the tenant compensation fixed at $115.00.

1. On 30 March 2015, Ms Diane Clarke (the tenant) entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the Director of Housing (the landlord) and took possession of the rented premises on 5 April 2015. The rent was rebated rent and was assessed to be $98.90 per week.
2. The rented premises is one of a number of units owned by the landlord and rented to tenants in a court in Nunawading.
3. The tenant had waited some 18 years to obtain a rental property from the landlord and was very happy to move in to what she called her 'forever house'.
4. Initially, the tenant was happy with the rented premises. However, not long after moving in, a number of issues arose for the tenant regarding the state of repair of the rented premises.
5. The tenant also became concerned that the landlord was failing in its duty to ensure her quiet enjoyment of the rented premises. Primarily, this concern arose due to alleged anti-social behaviour directed at her by two neighbours (the neighbours) living in a nearby unit also rented from the landlord. The tenant was also concerned by the way the landlord dealt with her new car when it thought it was an unauthorised vehicle and by rent arrears action taken against her by the landlord.
6. On or about 5 January 2017, the tenant served a breach of duty notice on the landlord alleging that, in breach of sections 65 and 67 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (the Act), the rented premises was not suitable for occupation and she was not allowed quiet enjoyment of the rented premises by the landlord.
7. On or about 16 March 2017, the tenant filed an application at the Tribunal under section 452 of the Act seeking a total of $14,658.49 compensation from the landlord pursuant to section 209 of the Act regarding the landlord's alleged breaches of sections 65 and 67 of the Act. The tenant's claim was subsequently amended to $13,907.80.
8. I heard the matter on 18 April and 21 July 2017. At the commencement of the hearing on 18 April 2017, a number of preliminary issues were dealt with. Firstly, the tenant asked for written reasons. I reserved my decision and what follows are those written reasons.
9. Secondly, it was decided, with the consent of the parties, that the tenant's claims regarding the landlord's alleged breach of section 65 would instead proceed as an alleged breach of section 68 regarding the landlord's duty to maintain the rented premises in good repair.

1. Thirdly, pursuant to section 104 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the tenant summoned three witnesses to attend the hearing but only one of these witnesses complied with the summons. After considering the issue, the tenant decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the non-attending summoned witnesses. This issue was revisited near the conclusion of the hearing on 21 July 2017 and, after further considering the issue, the tenant concluded that she would not further seek the attendance of the summoned witnesses that failed to comply with the witness summons.
2. Further, as the tenant's claim exceeds $10,000.00, the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 is taken to apply.

The Residential Tenancies Act 1997

1. Pursuant to section 207 of the Act, sections 67 and 68 of the Act are duty provisions.
2. Section 208 of the Act relevantly provides:

(1) A person to whom a duty is owed under a duty provision or that person's agent, may give a breach of duty notice to a person in breach of that duty.

(b) give details of the loss or damage caused by the breach; and

(c) require the person, within the required time after receiving the notice -

(ii) to compensate the person to whom the duty is owed; and

(d) state that the person in breach must not commit a similar breach again; and

(e) state that if the notice is not complied with -

(i) an application for compensation or a compliance order may be made to the Tribunal;

1. Section 209 of the Act relevantly provides:

(1) If a breach of duty notice is not complied with, the person who gave it may apply to the Tribunal for a compensation order or a compliance order.

1. Section 67 of the Act provides:

A landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the tenant has quiet enjoyment of the rented premises during the tenancy agreement.

1. 'Quiet enjoyment' is not defined in the Act. The right to quiet enjoyment under the Act is confined to its common law meaning.
2. The right to quiet enjoyment encompasses the tenant's right to possess the property and to enjoy it for all usual purposes.[1] A breach of quiet enjoyment will be found where the landlord, or people lawfully claiming under the landlord, have substantially interfered with the ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the property.[2] This is so even if neither the title to the land nor the possession of the land are otherwise affected.[3] Whether the landlord's interference is substantial is a question of fact and degree.[4] Substantial interference is conduct that renders the premises 'unfit from a reasonable point of view for the purpose for which' the lease was granted.[5]
3. Section 67 of the Act does not address the issue of the extent of the landlord's duty to protect a tenant from anti-social behaviour of a neighbour where that neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord.
4. In the case of Reardon v Ministry of Housing - BC9200599, Smith J of the Victorian Supreme Court made the following comments in relation to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1980 (this is in similar terms to section 67 of the Act).

"In my view, s92 extends the obligation of the landlord by requiring the landlord to take reasonable steps to ensure that the quiet enjoyment of the tenant is not disrupted when the landlord has notice of a third party disrupting or intending to disrupt a tenant's quiet enjoyment and could take action to stop it. The language of the section departs significantly from that of the usual covenant. In addition, while the section substantially re-enacts CL129(1) of the 1978 Bill it leaves out the concluding words - "without interruption by the landlord". This supports the view that the present section was not intended to be limited to interference with a tenant's quiet enjoyment by the landlord or his or her agent. The words in their natural meaning do not suggest such a limitation" page 11.

1. On the basis of these authorities, I accept that a landlord can be held liable for a breach of section 67 of the Act where the interference with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the rented premises by another tenant of the landlord is substantial and, although not authorised or directed by the landlord, could be stopped by the landlord taking all reasonable steps in circumstances where the landlord has sufficient information upon which to act.
2. There is further support for this approach in the common law: see Aussie Traveller Pty Ltd v Marklea Pty Ltd; Marklea Pty Ltd v Aussie Traveller Pty Ltd - BC9700272; [1998] 1 Qd R 1.
3. Section 68 of the Act relevantly provides:

(1) A landlord must ensure that the rented premises are maintained in good repair.

1. The word 'ensure' in section 68 imposes a strict obligation on the landlord synonymous with 'make sure.' [6]
2. In Vicki Shields v Peter Deliopoulos [2016] VSC 500 Daly AJ Her Honour found that the duty imposed upon a landlord under section 68 of the Act to 'ensure that the rental premises are maintained in good repair' is strict and absolute, and imposes an obligation upon a landlord to identify and rectify any defects of which they are aware or ought to be aware.[7]
3. Her Honour found that, in relation to defects that occur or develop during the tenancy agreement, a landlord is not in breach of the tenancy agreement unless he or she has notice of that defect and failed to act with reasonable diligence to repair it.[8]
4. In this proceeding, the tenant has the burden of proof to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord is in breach of the Act.

1. The tenant's claim that the landlord has breached section 67 of the Act relates to three issues being:

(1) that the landlord unnecessarily placed a notice of unregistered or abandoned vehicle on the tenant's new car (the notice);

(2) that the landlord took erroneous and therefore unjustified rent arrears action against the tenant (the rent arrears action); and

(3) that the landlord failed to take compliance action against the neighbours after the tenant complained to the landlord about their alleged anti-social behaviour (the alleged anti-social behaviour).

1. The tenant is seeking $3,513.70 compensation for the landlord's alleged breach of section 67 of the Act (being approximately 8 months rent from January 2016 to 30 September 2016) plus an additional $3,513.70 plus the value of improvements made by her to the rented premises which she now claims are lost being $4,503.80 totalling $11,531.20.
2. The landlord's position is that there was no substantial interference with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the rented premises arising out of its conduct.

1. The tenant gave evidence that on 6 January 2016 the landlord placed a notice of unregistered or abandoned vehicle on her new car siting that it was not a listed vehicle for the area in which it was parked.
2. The tenant gave evidence that it would have been easy for the landlord to discover that she was the owner of the car as other tenants knew she had recently purchased the car and so all it had to do was make reasonable enquiries. The tenant also gave evidence that, in recent times, other unauthorised vehicles had been parked in the relevant car park but did not receive a similar notice and therefore she felt singled out and treated more harshly than other tenants had been.
3. Mr Yap gave evidence on behalf of the landlord that it did not know who owned the vehicle so the notice was placed on what it thought was or may be an unauthorised vehicle to simply illicit a response as to its ownership so that appropriate action could be taken if required.
4. Mr Yap confirmed that, after the tenant made contact with the landlord on 6 January 2016 to advise that it was her car, the notice was withdrawn. Mr Yap sent a letter to the tenant the next day, being 7 January 2016, to confirm that the notice was withdrawn. The tenant does not dispute this.

1. I accept that the landlord placed the notice on the seemingly unauthorised vehicle to illicit a quick response as to the vehicle's ownership and that, even though other courses of action were open to it, it was an entirely appropriate course of action in the circumstances. It is not disputed that the notice was withdrawn by the landlord the next day after the tenant made contact with the landlord to confirm that she was the owner of the vehicle in question.
2. As a result, I find that placing the notice on the tenant's car caused no interference whatsoever with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the rented premises. As to the tenant's claim that she was singled out and treated more harshly than other tenants, I accept the evidence of the landlord that it did not know who owned the vehicle therefore it would not have been possible for the landlord to single out the tenant in relation to what it thought was an unauthorised vehicle.

1. The tenant gave evidence that on or about 14 August 2016 her rental rebate was erroneously cancelled by the landlord and so the rent payable for the rented premises reverted to market rent. This error by the landlord caused an overpayment of rent to be deducted by the landlord from the tenant's Centrelink direct debit facility.
2. The landlord did not dispute this and on 15 August 2016 it acknowledged the error, corrected the overpayment on the tenant's rent account and organised a cash cheque to reimburse the tenant for the overpayment that was available for the tenant to collect the following day.
3. The tenant did not dispute this however, on or about 24 August 2016, the tenant's Centrelink direct debit payments to the landlord were cancelled and the tenant ceased paying rent. The tenant also ceased communicating with the landlord.
4. On or about 4 October 2016, the landlord served on the tenant a notice to vacate due to the tenant being at least 14 days in arrears of the rent that was due and subsequently the landlord applied to the Tribunal for possession of the rented premises and rent pursuant to sections 246 and 322 of the Act.
5. On 25 October 2016, a hearing took place at the Tribunal regarding the landlord's rent arrears action and, at the request of the landlord, a three month adjournment was granted to allow time for the tenant and landlord to resolve the rent arrears issue as well as other proceedings at the Tribunal between the tenant and the landlord.
6. On 22 December 2016, the Tribunal made a possession order entitling the landlord to possession of the rented premises. The landlord, on the same or the next day, wrote to the tenant asking her to contact the landlord by 2 January 2017 or a warrant of possession may be issued which could result in eviction from the rented premises.
7. The tenant did not receive this letter until 4pm on 29 December 2017 and she gave evidence that this did not leave her with much time to process and deal with the contents of the letter. As at the date of this decision, the tenant remains in possession of the rented premises. These facts are not in dispute.
8. The tenant's position regarding the rent arrears action is that she always intended to pay her rent and that it was not possible to communicate with the landlord's staff due to other proceedings being on foot at the Tribunal involving the landlord and those very same staff.[9] The landlord's rent arrears action was therefore unjustified because it was taken in error and, as a result, the landlord beached its duty to ensure that the tenant has quiet enjoyment of the rented premises.
9. The landlord's position is that its rent arrears action was entirely lawful and justified as the tenant had fallen at least 14 days in arrears of the rent that was due and the Act does not permit a tenant to unilaterally decide to cease paying rent when she has a dispute with the landlord. The letter sent on 22 or 23 December 2017 requesting the tenant to contact the landlord was sent in order to have the tenant contact the landlord to arrange a payment plan so as to avoid the need to take possession of the rented premises. Therefore, there was no substantial interference by the landlord with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the rented premises.

1. On the basis of the evidence before me, it is clear that the tenant had fallen at least 14 days in arrears of the rent that was due and was not entitled under the Act to cease paying rent. Therefore, in my opinion, the landlord's rent arrears action was not taken in error and so was entirely lawful and justified.
2. While I accept the landlord's submission that any interference with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the rented premises as a result of its rent arrears action was not substantial, I would go further and say that, if the landlord's rent arrears action is entirely lawful and justified, then it is not possible to conclude that there has been any interference with the tenant's quite enjoyment of the rented premises at all. To do otherwise would suggest that any action taken by a landlord against a tenant permitted by the Act could be met with a claim that the landlord has breached its duty under section 67 to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the tenant has quiet enjoyment of the rented premises throughout the tenancy.
3. For this reason, I find that that there has been no interference with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the rented premises arising out of the landlord's rent arrears action. While it was unfortunate that the tenant received the letter sent 22 or 23 December 2016 on 29 December 2016 which did not leave her with much time to process its contents and to contact the landlord, I do not find that what I consider to be unintentional timing issues can amount to an interference by the landlord with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the rented premises.

1. The tenant's evidence was that, from January 2016, anti-social behaviour had been directed at her by the neighbours and that the landlord was aware of the conduct of the neighbours as she had complained to the landlord about their conduct on numerous occasions. Nevertheless, the landlord did nothing to prevent the neighbours' conduct until mid November 2016 when it finally interviewed the neighbours regarding the tenant's allegations. Therefore, the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the tenant had quiet enjoyment of the rented premises during the tenancy agreement.
2. As to the alleged anti-social behaviour of the neighbours, it is not necessary for me in this proceeding to make any findings about the conduct of the neighbours accept to say that the tenant's allegations relate to aggressive and abusive behaviour by the neighbours and, at the hearing, the tenant appeared genuinely aggrieved by the alleged anti-social behaviour of the neighbours. Ms V. Tullberg gave evidence at the hearing regarding her own experience with the neighbours but this did not add anything to the tenant's case.
3. The tenant submitted that the tenancy agreement she entered into with the landlord refers to a 'Neighbourly Behaviour Statement' (the Statement) that was introduced in March 2014 for all tenants of the landlord and that the Statement clearly identifies compliance and consequences of breaches of the tenancy agreement including eviction. For example, the Statement outlines the behaviour expected of public housing tenants, e.g. to respect others' rights and privacy, and provides examples of un-neighbourly behaviour, e.g. aggressive and violent behaviour.
4. The tenant's position is that the landlord, in failing to investigate her complaints about the neighbours, has failed to comply with the Statement as well as its own Tenancy Breaches Operational Guidelines (the Guidelines) that gives guidance to the landlord's staff regarding when it is reasonable to take action regarding an alleged tenancy breach. For example, the Guidelines state that: "Staff, in consultation with their line management, must investigate all reports of an alleged tenancy breach they receive prior to determining what action to take".
5. The landlord's position is that, although the tenant had made numerous complaints to it, both verbally and in writing, regarding the alleged anti-social behaviour of the neighbours including by way of letter dated 30 July 2016 addressed to the landlord's Complaints, Integrity and Privacy Unit, these complaints lacked sufficient information upon which to act.
6. Although requested by the landlord, at no time did the tenant complete an 'Incident Log Sheet' which, if completed properly, would have provided the landlord with the necessary information upon which to act including the date and time of any alleged incident, people involved in the alleged incident and the names of any witnesses. Therefore, because the tenant refused to complete an 'Incident Log Sheet' the landlord did not have sufficient information upon which to commence an investigation.
7. As to the alleged breaches of the Statement and the Guidelines, the landlord's position is that these are policy guidelines that do not have to be followed by the landlord but may be applied on a case by case basis.
8. Under cross-examination, the tenant agreed that, after she sent a letter of complaint to the landlord dated 11 April 2016, staff of the landlord, being Mr Shell and Mr Bui, came to visit her at the rented premises and asked her to complete an incident report. Although the tenant suggested she would complete the incident report, she accepted that she never did.
9. At a further meeting between the tenant and staff of the landlord, being Mr Bui and Mr Cattapan, at the landlord's offices on 25 July 2016, the tenant accepted that it was explained to her that, in order for the landlord to take the neighbours to VCAT, her allegations needed to be substantiated therefore they needed further information about the allegations. The tenant accepted that at this meeting Mr Cattapan had an Incident Log Sheet to give to her but she wouldn't take it. The tenant's evidence was that she didn't want the matter to go to VCAT and so didn't accept the incident report.
10. In re-examination, the tenant's evidence was that she wanted early intervention in unsubstantiated cases.
11. Mr Yap gave evidence on behalf of the landlord that the landlord was not willing to investigate unsubstantiated allegations against the neighbours but, as soon as possible after the landlord received a copy of the tenant's Human Rights List application at the Tribunal, in mid November 2016, alleging breaches of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 by the neighbours, he and Ms DeBell met with the neighbours. In this meeting, the neighbours denied the allegations made by the tenant and raised their own allegations against the tenant including by completing an Incident Log Sheet.
12. Mr Yap's evidence was that, in the circumstances, it was not proportionate to take action at VCAT against the neighbours.
13. Mr Yap also gave evidence that, as soon as possible after it was raised with him by the tenant, he investigated her complaint that the neighbours had stolen a plaque from the tenant's front yard and concluded that the plaque displayed in the neighbours' front yard was not the same as the tenant's missing plaque.
14. Under cross examination, Mr Yap gave evidence that the landlord's operational policy is a guideline that the landlord doesn't have to follow in every case but can be applied on a case by case basis.
15. The evidence of Mr Cattapan did not add anything further.

1. I accept the submission of the landlord that the Statement and the Guidelines are policy guidelines that are non-binding. The tenant accepted this in her closing submission. There is also authority to support this view.[10] Nevertheless, I accept that these non-binding policy guidelines can create an expectation in the tenant that the landlord will strictly follow its guidelines, which can be a difficult expectation for the landlord to manage as was the situation for the landlord in this case.
2. Therefore, if the Statement and the Guidelines are non-binding, it does not automatically follow that any failure by the landlord to comply with them means that the landlord has failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the tenant has quiet enjoyment of the rented premises. Regardless of whether there has been a failure by the landlord to comply with its non-binding policy guidelines or not (about which I make no findings), the question for the Tribunal is whether there has been substantial interference by the landlord with the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the rented premises by way of its failure to act on her complaints about the neighbours?
3. It is clear from the evidence that the landlord was willing to investigate the tenant's complaints regarding the alleged anti-social behaviour of the neighbours if it had sufficient information upon which to act. It is also clear that the tenant failed to complete one or more Incident Log Sheets, as

requested by the landlord, regarding the neighbours' alleged conduct that would have, if completed properly, provided sufficient detail to the landlord upon which it could, if possible, substantiate the tenant's allegations.

1. As a result, I conclude that the landlord has not failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the tenant's quite enjoyment of the rented premises.
2. In fact, had the landlord acted on the tenant's allegations without sufficient information to substantiate the allegations, the landlord would have likely been substantially interfering with the neighbours' quite enjoyment of their rented premises.
3. In November 2016, when the landlord had sufficient detail regarding the neighbours' alleged anti-social behaviour, it took reasonable steps by acting quickly to interview the neighbours and make a decision on the appropriate course of action. Therefore, the landlord has not breached section 67 of the Act because, in the circumstances, it took all reasonable steps to ensure the tenant's quiet enjoyment of the rented premises. As a result, there was no substantial interference with the tenant's quite enjoyment of the rented premises by the landlord.
4. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the landlord's failure to ensure quiet enjoyment of the rented premises is dismissed.

Duty to maintain premises - Evidence & Findings

1. The tenant's claim that the landlord has breached section 68 of the Act relates to a number of alleged defects with the rented premises that came to the tenant's attention after she moved into the rented premises. The tenant is seeking $2376.60 as compensation (being approximately 6 months rent from 30 April 2015 to 31 October 2015).
2. The tenant's evidence was that at a meeting at the rented premises on 30 April 2015 with Mr Lee Ho from the landlord, she raised a number of items to be repaired and that it was intended that these repairs would be completed within 14 days. The landlord does not dispute this.
3. Prior to this, on 14 April 2015, the tenant contacted the landlord regarding a faulty pilot light, which was fixed the same day, and complained that the gas hot water service was not working. The tenant also called the landlord on 16 and 24 April 2015 regarding a faulty shower hose, rusty cupboard and drawer handles in the kitchen, leaves and debris in the roof gutters and a front window awning that was not operating properly.
4. On 28 May 2015, the tenant contacted the landlord regarding outstanding maintenance works. On 11 June 2015, the tenant wrote to the relevant Minister regarding her concerns about the condition of the rented premises. On or about 1 July 2015, the landlord replied to this letter and confirmed that 14 out of 24 items on the outstanding list of works had been completed and that the head contractor has been notified that the remaining 10 items are a priority for completion.
5. At no time did the tenant obtain a report from Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) regarding non-urgent repairs or apply to the Tribunal for a compliance order ordering the landlord to undertake urgent repairs. The landlord did not take any issue with this at the hearing.
6. The landlord's position is that, where repairs were required in order for it to comply with its duty under section 68 of the Act, it took all reasonable steps to comply with that duty in that any works required to be done were done in a reasonable period of time which is a matter the Tribunal may consider under section 211 of the Act in deciding whether or not to award compensation to the tenant. Otherwise, if any repairs were not completed in a reasonable amount of time, the tenant's use of the rented premises was unaffected as there was no loss of amenity or any other loss regarding which the tenant should be compensated.
7. Mr Yap and Ms DeBell gave evidence on behalf of the landlord.
8. I will now deal with all 24 items separately as follows:

1. The tenant's evidence was that, although the pilot light was fixed by the landlord's plumbing contractor on 14 April 2015, being the same day that she contacted the landlord about the issue, the actual gas hot water service was not working until at least 30 April 2015.
2. The landlord's evidence and position was that the gas meter was newly installed and it is the tenant's responsibility to arrange for connection of utilities to the rented premises. Any issue with the pilot light was resolved on the same day as the issue arose and there was nothing otherwise wrong with the hot water service.

1. I accept that it is the responsibility of the tenant to connect utilities to the rented premises and I accept that the gas hot water service was otherwise in working order except for the pilot light not being lit which was remedied the same day as the issue was raised. As a result, the landlord has not breached section 68 of the Act in relation to the hot water service. The tenant's claim for compensation regarding the gas hot water service is dismissed.

1. The tenant's evidence was that the electricity meter box latch was broken and that she couldn't access the meter as required by the electricity provider. This was brought to the landlord's attention on 30 April 2015.
2. The landlord's position is that a work order was raised on the same day, being 30 April 2015, and the broken latch was repaired by 27 May 2015 which was a reasonable amount of time in the circumstances.
3. Additionally, regardless of the amount of time taken to fix the latch, the landlord argued there was no loss of amenity for the tenant and, as the tenant was not overcharged by the electricity provider as a result of the broken latch, there was no other actual loss suffered by the tenant.

1. Whilst the length of time taken to fix the latch is at the outer limit of what may be considered reasonable, I accept that the tenant suffered no loss of amenity regarding the rented premises as a result of the broken latch nor did she suffer any overcharging by the electricity provider. As a result, even if I was to find that the landlord could have repaired the latch sooner and so failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68 (which I have not), it would still not be appropriate to make any order for compensation in relation to the broken latch. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the broken electricity meter box latch is dismissed.

1. The tenant's evidence is that she brought the missing letterbox key to the attention of the landlord on 30 April 2015 and her position is that the inability to lock her letterbox is a safety issue. The tenant's evidence is that this issue was not resolved until late July 2015.
2. The landlord's position is that a work order was raised on the same day, being 30 April 2015, and the issue was resolved by 27 May 2015. Even if it wasn't resolved until late July 2015, which it does not accept, regardless of when the issue of the missing letterbox key was resolved, the amenity of the rented premises was not affected nor did the tenant suffer any loss as a result of the missing letterbox key.

1. I accept the evidence of the landlord, as supported by its works running sheet, that the issue of the missing letter box key was resolved by 27 May 2015. Whilst the length of time taken to remedy the problem of the missing letterbox key is at the outer limits of what may be considered reasonable, I accept that the tenant suffered no loss of amenity regarding the rented premises as a result of the missing letterbox key nor did she suffer any other loss as a result of the missing letterbox key. As a result, even if I was to find that the landlord could have fixed the problem of the missing letterbox key sooner and so failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68 (which I have not), it would still not be appropriate in the circumstances to make any order for compensation in relation to the missing letterbox key. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the missing letterbox key is dismissed.

1. Rear fence
2. The tenant's evidence was that the fence at the rear of her unit, which is a communal fence, was missing some posts and palings and had been that way since her tenancy commenced. The tenant reported this to the landlord on 17 July 2015. The tenant's position was that the landlord's failure to maintain the fence in good repair gave rise to a security issue for her as she did not feel safe in the rented premises as a result of the state of repair of the rear fence and that a new fence should have been installed much sooner.
3. The landlord's evidence was that its contractors commenced installing a new superior Colorbond fence on 16 November 2015 which was completed by the end of that same month therefore all reasonable steps were taken to ensure that the rented premises was in good repair.

1. I accept the evidence of the tenant that the rear fence was not in good repair and that, once the issue was reported to the landlord on 17 July 2015, it should have been rectified sooner than four months later. I also accept the evidence of the tenant that she had genuine security concerns in relation to the poorly maintained fence. As a result, I find that the tenant is entitled to an amount of compensation because the landlord has breached section 68 of the Act in relation to the poorly maintained fence and has failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with its duty.
2. The tenant did not claim any specific amount of compensation in relation to the rear fence or suggest any method for calculating compensation other than claiming a full refund of 6 months rent totalling $2376.60 in relation to all 24 of the landlord's alleged breaches of section 68 of the Act.
3. In my opinion, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to replace or repair the fence within 6 weeks of the date that the problem was reported to the landlord being 17 July 2015. Therefore, I am prepared to award compensation for the period 1 September 2015 to 30 November 2015 and allow the amount of $50.00.

1. The tenant's evidence was that the gate that was part of the rear fence could not be locked because the lock was missing and that, like with the rear fence, this was a security issue for the tenant. The tenant brought this issue to the attention of the landlord at the meeting on 30 April 205 and it was intended that the problem would be fixed within 14 days.
2. The landlord's position is that a work order was raised on the same day, being 30 April 2015, and the rear gate repairs were completed by 27 May 2015, which was a reasonable amount of time in the circumstances.

1. I am prepared to award an amount of compensation to the tenant on the basis that the landlord has breached its duty under section 68 and failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with its duty to maintain the rented premises in good repair. In my opinion, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to repair the rear gate by dealing with the missing lock issue within 14 days of it being reported by the tenant. Therefore, I am prepared to award compensation for the period 15 May 2015 to 27 May 2015 and allow the amount of $10.00.

1. The tenant's evidence was that the outside tool cupboard doors had been broken into and that there were no keys available. This was brought to the landlord's attention at the meeting on 30 April 2015.
2. The landlord's position is that it raised a work order on that same day, being 30 April 2015, and the repairs were completed by 27 May 2015 which was a reasonable period of time in the circumstances and that there was no loss of amenity in relation to the faulty outside tool cupboard doors.
3. The tenant disputed that this repair was completed by 27 May 2015 and gave evidence that it was completed sometime later although she did could not give an exact date. The tenant did not provide any evidence that she had any tools or that any tools went missing as a result of the faulty tool cupboard doors.

1. I accept the evidence of the landlord, as supported by its works running sheet, that the outside tool cupboard doors were repaired by 27 May 2015. Whilst the length of time taken to repair the outside tool cupboard doors is at the outer limits of what may be considered reasonable, I accept that the tenant suffered no loss of amenity regarding the rented premises as a result of the broken outside tool cupboard doors nor did she suffer any other loss such as missing tools. As a result, even if I was to find that the landlord could have repaired the outside tool cupboard doors sooner and so failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68 (which I have not), it would still not be appropriate to make any order for compensation in relation to the faulty outside tool cupboard doors. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the outside tool cupboard doors is dismissed.

1. The tenant gave evidence that the external door locks were filled with glue by the previous tenant and so were not working.

1. The landlord's position is that all external door locks were changed as part of vacant works before the tenant moved into the rented premises. Mr Yap gave evidence on behalf of the landlord that he personally witnessed that all the locks were changed during vacant works at the rented premises.

1. The tenant has failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the external door locks were filled with glue and did not work. I accept the evidence of Mr Yap being that all the external locks were changed as part of vacant works on the rented premises. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the external door locks is dismissed.

1. The tenant's evidence was that, at the meeting between Mr Ho and the tenant at the rented premises on 30 April 2015, the tenant raised with the landlord that there was still rubbish in the roof left behind by the previous tenant. No evidence was given by the tenant that the rubbish in the roof affected the amenity of the rented premises in any way or that she had suffered any other loss as a result of the rubbish in the roof.
2. The position of the landlord was that it raised a works order that same day, being 30 April 2015, and the rubbish was removed by the landlord on or before 27 May 2015 which was a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances and that there was no loss caused to the tenant as a result of the rubbish left in the roof.

1. Whilst the length of time taken to remove the rubbish in the roof is at the outer limits of what may be considered reasonable, I accept that the tenant suffered no loss of amenity regarding the rented premises as a result of the rubbish in the roof nor did she suffer any other loss. As a result, even if I was to find that the landlord could have removed the rubbish sooner and so failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68 (which I have not), it would still not be appropriate to make any order for compensation in relation to the rubbish in the roof. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the rubbish in the roof is dismissed.

1. The tenant gave evidence that the tap handle in the rear yard had been sawn off by the previous tenant or someone else other than her and that she raised this at the meeting with the landlord on 30 April 2015. The tenant' position was that this was the only source of water in the back yard and so it could have been a potential safety issue in the event of a fire.
2. The landlord's position is that it missed the repairs to the tap handle at the inspection but raised a work order on 2 June 2015 after the tenant sent a letter to the landlord with a complete list of required repairs on or about 1 June 2015. The repairs to the external rear yard tap were completed by 17 June 2015, which was a reasonable amount of time in the circumstances. Additionally, there was no loss of amenity or other actual loss caused by the missing tap handle.

1. I accept that the issue of the sawn-off tap handle was raised by the tenant at the inspection of the rented premises by Mr Ho on 30 April 2015 and that it was the intention of the landlord to complete the repair of the tap handle within 14 days of 30 April 2015 but for some reason this did not eventuate until 17 June 2015 after the tenant reminded the landlord that the repair to the tap handle had not been completed.
2. As a result, I find that the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to ensure the rented premises was maintained in good repair in relation to the sawn-off tap handle as it was reasonable in the circumstances to complete the repair within two weeks of being put on notice of the required repairs being 15 May 2015. Therefore, I find that the tenant is entitled to compensation for the period 15 May 2015 to 17 June 2015 and allow $10.00.

1. The tenant's evidence is that she called the landlord on 24 April 2015 and notified it of a defective front awning that was not running smoothly when being lowered due to its brackets being broken. The tenant's position is that this was affecting her privacy and security.
2. The landlord's position is that a work order was raised that same day, being 24 April 2015, and the repairs were completed by 6 May 2015, which was a reasonable period of time in the circumstances.

1. The tenant's evidence was that the front awning was not running smoothly as opposed to not working at all. On this view, I would not be minded to award any compensation to the tenant as, in my opinion, the amenity of the rented premises was not affected because the awning was still operational. Nevertheless, I find that the landlord repaired the defective awning within 14 days of being notified which is a reasonable amount of time in the circumstances therefore it would not be appropriate to order the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant in relation to the defective awning. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the defective awning is dismissed.

1. The tenant's evidence was that she raised with the landlord on 30 April 2015 that there were no flyscreens on any external windows at the rented premises and that these were supposed to be fitted as part of the vacant works. No specific evidence was given by the tenant as to how this affected the amenity of the rented premises.
2. The landlord's position is that a work order was re-raised on that same day, being 30 April 2015, and the installation of the flyscreens was completed by 27 May 2015, which was a reasonable amount of time in the circumstances.

1. Although the tenant did not give specific evidence as to how the lack of any fly screens affected the amenity of the rented premises, I accept that a lack of any fly screens essentially means that the tenant can't open her external windows and so the amenity of the rented premises is negatively affected.
2. In my opinion, a reasonable period of time to fit and install the flyscreens would have been two weeks. Therefore, as the flyscreens were installed approximately four weeks after the issue was raised on 30 April 2015, being 27 May 2015, it is appropriate, in the circumstances, to award an amount of compensation to the tenant because the landlord has breached its duty under section 68 and failed to take all reasonable steps to comply. Therefore, I will allow $10.00 for the period 15 May 2015 to 27 May 2015.

1. The tenant's evidence is that, when she moved in to the rented premises, the clothesline was broken. This was raised with the landlord at the meeting on 30 April 2015. No specific evidence was provided by the tenant as to how the lack of a working clothesline affected the amenity of the rented premises.
2. The landlord's position is that a work order was raised that same day, being 30 April 2015, and that the clothesline was replaced by 27 May 2015, which was a reasonable period of time in the circumstances.

1. Although the tenant did not give specific evidence as to how the lack a working clothesline affected the amenity of the rented premises, I accept that the lack of a working clothesline does negatively affect the amenity of the rented premises because the tenant is forced to use other more costly methods to dry her clothes.
2. In my opinion, a reasonable period of time to install a new clothesline would have been two weeks. Therefore, as the clothesline was installed approximately four weeks after the issue was raised on 30 April 2015, being 27 May 2015, it is appropriate, in the circumstances, to award compensation to the tenant for the period 15 May 2015 to 27 May 2015 and allow the amount of $10.00.

1. The tenant's evidence is that the gutters of the rented premises were full of leaves and other debris and that this was raised with the landlord over the phone on 24 April 2015.
2. The landlord's position is that a work order was raised the same day that the gutters were brought to its attention, being 24 April 2015, and that the gutters were cleaned by its contractor three days later on 27 April 2015. Therefore, the maintenance works were attended to in a reasonable amount of time.

1. The landlord attended to the gutters within a reasonable period of time, being three days, and so took all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68. Therefore, it is not appropriate to make an order for compensation in the circumstances. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the roof gutters is dismissed.

1. The tenant's evidence was that the rear door security light was not bright enough. This was raised with the landlord on or about 22 June 2015.
2. The landlord's position was that this repair request was initially not approved on the basis that there was nothing wrong with the current security light. Nevertheless, the landlord proceeded to install a sensor light with the works being completed by 3 July 2015.

1. I accept the evidence of the landlord being that the original rear security light was working sufficiently well and did not require replacement. Therefore, the tenant has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord has failed to ensure that the rented premises is maintained in good repair regarding the rear security light. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the rear security light is dismissed.

1. The tenant's evidence was that there was some rubbish left behind in the back yard by the previous tenant who had also extended a dirt area in the back yard in a makeshift way that was dangerous. The tenant also gave evidence that sleepers in the back yard garden bed were rotten and otherwise not secure and that she was concerned about falling over because of them. These back yard issues were raised with the landlord at the meeting on 30 April 2015 but were not completed until 13 August 2015.
2. The landlord's position is that a work order was raised on 7 August 2015 and the job was completed on 13 August 2015, which was a reasonable amount of time in the circumstances. Regardless, there was no loss of amenity regarding the rented premises arising out of the back yard issues.

1. Although the issues with the back yard were raised with the landlord on 30 April 2015 but were not dealt with until 13 August 2015, which is an unnecessarily long period of time, I accept that the tenant suffered no loss of amenity regarding the rented premises as a result of the back yard issues. The tenant did not give any evidence regarding amount or type of rubbish or how it affected her use of the rented premises and, whilst I accept that the tenant was concerned about falling over, I find that there were no immediate safety issues with the dirt and the sleepers. As a result, although I accept that the landlord could have fixed the back yard issues sooner and so failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68, it would still not be appropriate to make an order for compensation in relation to the back yard issues. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the back yard issues is dismissed.

1. The tenant's evidence was that, on 30 April 2015, she raised with the landlord a number of repair issues regarding the rented premises' kitchen being:

1. that the vinyl floor and kick board needs to be replaced as they are urine stained and not able to be cleaned; 2. that the kitchen bench needs to be replaced as it is urine stained and not able to be cleaned;

1. that the cupboard handles under the sink are rusted and need to be replaced; and

1. that the shelf under the sink is rotten and needs to be replaced.
2. The landlord's position is that these repairs were completed in a reasonable amount of time. In relation to the vinyl floor and kick board, a work order was raised on 30 April 2015 and completed by 16 June 2015. In relation to the kitchen bench, a work order was raised on 30 April 2015 and completed by 27 May 2015. In relation to the cupboard handles, a work order was raised on 30 April 2015 and completed by 27 May 2015. In relation to the shelf under the sink, a work order was raised on 30 April 2015 and completed by 17 June 2015.

1. In relation to the kitchen, the landlord has failed to maintain the rented premises in good repair and has failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68 by failing to complete the repairs in a reasonable period of time. In my opinion, a reasonable period of time to complete the kitchen repairs would have been four weeks. Therefore, as the

last repairs to the kitchen were completed on 17 June 2016, being approximately six weeks after the issue was raised on 30 April 2015, it is appropriate, in the circumstances, to award compensation to the tenant for the period 1 June 2015 to 17 June 2015 and allow the amount of $10.00.

1. Showerhead and hose
2. The tenant gave evidence that the showerhead and hose were broken which was affecting her ability to use the shower and that she raised this with the landlord on 16 April 2015 but it was not fixed until 26 May 2015.
3. The landlord's position was that the showerhead and hose were fixed on 23 April 2016 and so it took all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68 by completing the repairs in a reasonable amount of time. This was despite the landlord's own works running sheet stating that the repairs to the showerhead and hose were completed on 26 May 2015.

1. Given the evidence of the tenant and the landlord's own works document, I am satisfied that the showerhead and hose were not repaired until 26 May 2015. I am also satisfied that, as a result of the broken showerhead and hose and the time taken to conduct the repairs, the landlord has failed to maintain the rented premises in good repair and failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68. In my opinion, a reasonable amount of time to fix the broken showerhead and hose would have been two weeks. Therefore, the tenant is entitled to compensation in relation to the broken showerhead and hose for the period 1 May 2015 to 26 May 2015 and I allow the amount of $15.00.

1. The tenant's evidence was that there is a gap in the ceiling of the tall cupboard and that her Esky lid fell through the gap and cannot be retrieved. She raised this with the landlord on 30 April 2015 but she was not sure if the gap had been fixed and the Esky lid still remained missing. The tenant also confirmed that the Esky was a number of years old.
2. The landlord's evidence was that it raised a work order on 30 April 2015 and the Esky lid was retrieved and the gap fixed by 27 May 2015 which is supported by it works running sheet.

1. On the basis of the evidence, I find that the tall cupboard ceiling gap was fixed by 27 May 2015 which, in the circumstances, was a reasonable amount of time and so the tenant is not entitled to an award of compensation in relation to the gap because the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68. Even if the tenant

has not retrieved her Esky lid, which is in dispute, I would also find that the tenant is not entitled to an award of compensation regarding the missing Esky lid as, taking into account the Esky's age, neither the lid nor the Esky as a whole would have any monetary value.

1. Towel railing and hooks
2. The tenant's evidence was that on 30 April 2015 she raised with the landlord that missing from the bathroom were two coat hooks and one towel rail and that this repair was not completed until 27 May 2015.
3. The landlord's position is that it raised a work order on 30 April 2015 and the repairs were completed by 27 May 2015, which is a reasonable amount of time in the circumstances.

1. Whilst the length of time taken to replace the towel railing and missing hooks is at the outer limits of what may be considered reasonable, I accept that the tenant suffered no loss of amenity or any other loss regarding the rented premises as a result of the missing towel railing and hooks. As a result, even if I was to find that the landlord could have replaced the towel railing and missing hooks sooner and so failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68 (which I have not), it would still not be appropriate to make any order for compensation in relation to the missing towel railing or hooks. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the missing towel railing and hooks is dismissed.

1. The tenant's evidence was that the internal entry door could not be locked because it had the wrong door handle. The tenant raised this with the landlord on 2 June 2015 and it was not fixed until 17 July 2015.
2. The landlord's evidence was that there was nothing wrong with the handle as it was meant to be that way. Regardless, a work order was raised on 2 June 2015 and a new door handle was installed by 17 July 2015. The landlord's position is that no repairs were necessary as there was nothing wrong with the door handle.

1. I am not convinced on the evidence that the door handle was the wrong type of door handle. I prefer the evidence of the landlord being that the door and door handle were meant to be that way. Therefore, the tenant has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord failed to maintain the rented premises in good repair regarding the internal entry door. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the internal entry door is dismissed.

1. Curtain rod holders - lounge room
2. The tenant's evidence was that curtain rod holders were missing in the bedroom and lounge room and that this was affecting her privacy. This was raised with the landlord on 23 October 2015 and not fixed until 4 November 2015.
3. The landlord's position and evidence was that the rented premises already had functioning Holland blinds which was standard so what the tenant really wanted was a second set of blinds. It was not disputed by the tenant that the rented premises already had functioning Holland blinds. Nevertheless, the landlord installed extra brackets so that the tenant could install a second set of blinds, which was completed by 4 November 2015.

1. I accept the evidence of the landlord, which was not disputed by the tenant, being that the rented premises already had functioning Holland blinds which is standard. Therefore, the tenant has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord has failed to ensure that the rented premises is maintained in good repair regarding the curtain rod holders. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the missing curtain rod holders in the bedroom and lounge room is dismissed.

1. The tenant's evidence was that an antenna and power socket was defective and was shorting out her television. She raised this with the landlord on 2 June 2015.
2. The landlord's position is that it raised a work order on 2 June 2015 which was completed by 5 June 2015 and that taking three days to complete the repairs was a reasonable period of time in the circumstances.
3. The tenant did not dispute that the repairs were completed by 5 June 2015 nor did she provide any evidence in relation to any damage to her television.

1. In my opinion, the repairs to the antenna and power socket were completed in a reasonable period of time, being three days, therefore the landlord took all reasonable steps to comply with its duty under section 68 to maintain the rented premises in good repair. Therefore, in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to make an award of compensation in relation to the faulty antenna and power socket. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the faulty antenna and power socket is dismissed.

1. The tenant claimed that her domestic rubbish bin was incorrectly numbered.
2. The landlord's position is that this is an issue solely for the local municipal council.

1. I agree with the submissions made by the landlord that the incorrectly numbered council rubbish bin is solely an issue for the local municipal council and nothing to do with any duties owed to the tenant by the landlord. The tenant's claim for compensation from the landlord in relation to the incorrectly numbered domestic rubbish bin is dismissed.

1. For the above reasons, I find the tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the landlord's failure to maintain the rented premises proven in the amount of $115.00.
2. The tenant's claim for compensation in relation to the landlord's failure to ensure quiet enjoyment of the rented premises is dismissed.
3. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the tenant fixed at $115.00.

[1] Martins Camera Corner Pty Ltd v Hotel Mayfair Ltd [1976] 2 NSWLR 15, 23.

[2] Sanderson v The Mayor of Berwick-Upon-Tweed (1884) 13 QBD 547, 551.

[3] Martins Camera Corner Pty Ltd v Hotel Mayfair Ltd [1976] 2 NSWLR 15, 23.

[4] Sanderson v The Mayor of Berwick-Upon-Tweed (1884) 13 QBD 547, 551; Southwark London Borough Council v Mills [1999] UKHL 40; [1999] 3 WLR 939, 945 (Lord Hoffmann).

[5] Gordon v Lidcombe Developments Pty Ltd [1966] 2 NSWR 9 at 15; Aussie Traveller Pty Ltd v Marklea Pty Ltd [1998] 1 Qd R 1.

[6] Vicki Shields v Peter Deliopoulos [2016] VSC 500 per Daly AJ @ [31]

[7] Vicki Shields v Peter Deliopoulos [2016] VSC 500 Daly AJ @ [30]

[8] Vicki Shields v Peter Deliopoulos [2016] VSC 500 Daly AJ @ [41]

[9] The tenant, at the time, had two other proceedings ongoing at the Tribunal in the Human Rights List that arose out of matters related to the tenancy that is the subject of this proceeding.

[10] Fishlock v Director of Housing [2016] VCAT 1115 per Vassie SM @ [26]