Fletcher v South Australian Housing Trust [2019] SACAT 36

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

[1]

This matter is finely balanced, partly because the evidence is now, with the passage of time, in an unsatisfactory state. The opportunities that have been given to Ms Fletcher have been sufficient, and the time she has been given to fulfil her obligations (approximately nine months) has been sufficient. However, the written specification of what she has been required to do has been inadequate and the evidence about the current state of the premises is inadequate. The inadequacy of the evidence has greater significance because of the significant length of the tenancy (over 25 years) and the lack of any evidence of an imminent risk of harm to any person arising from the tenant's breach.
I consider that the decision made on 7 May 2019 and now subject of review was not the correct or preferable decision and that it should be set aside. In light of the length of the tenancy and because hygiene was not a problem, Ms Fletcher was not told by the SAHT or the Tribunal what was needed to be done to bring the property up to "good tenantable condition" in specific enough terms. The evidence was inadequate to enable a proper assessment of the premises as to warrant an order for termination of the tenancy. A different order should be made. In lieu of the order made on 7 May 2019, I decide that Ms Fletcher may remain at the property. I direct that Ms Fletcher should permit the SAHT (represented by Ms Pascoe or another officer) to inspect the premises and issue a further detailed written directive, if necessary, to Ms Fletcher as to what is required to be done in order for the premises to be in good tenantable condition within a month of her receipt of the directive.

[2]

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (3)

Fletcher v South Australian Housing Trust [2019] SACAT 36 (5 August 2019)