plaintiff. Order that the Director of Housing pay the tenant compensation of $1,845.00 for landlords' failure to maintain premises and reimburse the application fee of $61.50 (VCAT order dated 6 April 2017).
Key principles
The Director of Housing breached the statutory duty under s 68 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 by failing to ensure the rented premises were maintained in good repair after...
Where a landlord, after being notified of cracking and water damage, undertakes only superficial plaster and tile works without adequate investigation of roof framing, roof...
When a landlord fails to produce evidence (for example contractor witness statements) in response to Tribunal directions, the Tribunal may infer that such evidence would not have...
Issues before the court
Whether the landlord breached the statutory duty to maintain the rented premises in good repair under s 68 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997.
Whether that breach caused the tenant's loss of personal property and reasonable removal costs.
Whether the tenant should be reimbursed the Tribunal application fee.
Plain English Summary
VCAT found the Director of Housing breached its strict duty under s 68 of the Residential Tenancies Act by failing to properly investigate and repair known ceiling/roof issues reported in 2012. These insufficient repairs (replastering and limited tile work) did not address underlying structural movement; in July 2016 the lounge ceiling collapsed, destroying tenant's belongings. The Tribunal accepted the tenant's sworn evidence, inferred against the landlord where it failed to produce contractor statements, and awarded the tenant $1,845 for destroyed items and removalist costs, plus reimbursement of the $61.50 filing fee.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,868 words · generated 18/06/2026
What happened
A public-housing tenant, Ms Holly Van Ristell, reported cracking in a bedroom ceiling and dust falling from plaster in 2012. The Director of Housing (the landlord) issued work orders in July and September 2012 for tile resetting, downpipe clearing and plaster ceiling replacement/repair in response to the reported water damage (Factual History paras 1-4). The tenant says she observed contractors at the time, but did not see any investigation of the roof cavity or wider roof framing (Factual History para 5).
Evidentiary burdens and inferences where a party fails to produce ordered material.
Cited legislation
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
On 8 July 2016 the lounge-room ceiling of the same weatherboard house collapsed, covering furniture and electrical equipment with plaster, insulation and debris (Factual History paras 6-8). The landlord attended, arranged debris removal and temporary remedial works, and provided short-term accommodation (Factual History paras 8-12). The landlord later contended a contractor could not access the premises to complete replastering, but produced no contractor witness statement when ordered to do so; a Bunnings invoice dated 13 July 2016 suggested only screw-fixing work was done that day (Factual History paras 3-4).
An engineering Building Movement Program report dated 19 October 2016 identified failing concrete stumps (sub-floor), warped roof framing, cracked plaster throughout and movement-caused ceiling collapse, and recommended major remedial works including roof tile removal and replacement of ceiling insulation (Factual History paras 10-12). The tenant claimed $1,845 in compensation for destroyed items and removalist costs, and the Tribunal found the landlord liable under s 68 RTAct and ordered payment of $1,845 plus reimbursement of the $61.50 filing fee (Order and Reasons; Award of compensation; Fees).
Why the court decided this way
Statutory duty and strictness
The Tribunal proceeded from the statutory provision, s 68 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, which requires a landlord to 'ensure that the rented premises are maintained in good repair' (Did the landlord breach... para 1). The Member treated that duty as strict and ongoing, adopting the approach articulated in Shields v Deliopoulos (cited in the Reasons) that the landlord must put premises in good repair at tenancy commencement and identify defects it knows or ought to know (Did the landlord breach... paras 1–3).
Insufficiency of 2012 remedial works
The Tribunal examined the work orders produced by the landlord and the tenant's evidence. While the 2012 work orders recorded plaster replacement and some roof/tile work, the Tribunal found no evidence of an adequate investigation of the roof cavity, roof framing or sub-floor, and the tenant said no such investigation was observed (Factual History paras 2–5). The Member concluded that mere replastering and tile changes 'merely masked a more serious problem' and were grossly inadequate to discharge the s 68 obligation (Did the landlord breach... paras 2–5).
Causation and linkage to collapse
The October 2016 engineering report linked failing stumps, warped roof framing and sub-floor movement to widespread cracking and ceiling collapse, and specifically identified inadequate fixing techniques and floor movement as contributing to the collapse (Factual History paras 10–11). The Tribunal accepted this professional opinion to link the 2012 problem and inadequate repair with the 2016 collapse. The Member concluded that, had a proper investigation and thorough repairs been carried out in 2012, the 2016 loss would probably not have occurred (Did the landlord breach... para 5).
Evidentiary weight and adverse inference
The Tribunal ordered the landlord to supply affidavits and reports, including contractor witness statements. The landlord's subsequent material was scant and did not include the contractor statements; the Tribunal drew the reasonable inference that the contractor evidence would not have assisted the landlord and preferred the tenant’s sworn evidence, supported by contemporaneous invoices (Factual History paras 2–5). This evidential posture reinforced the factual findings against the landlord.
Remedy
With breach and causation established, the Tribunal applied ss 210–211 RTAct principles on compensation for loss flowing from tenancy breaches, accepted the unchallenged valuations for destroyed items and removalist costs, and ordered the compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee under s 115B VCAT Act (Award of compensation; Fees).
Before and after state of the law
Before
The statutory framework in Victoria already imposed on landlords a positive, strict duty to maintain premises in good repair under s 68 RTAct. Case law, including Shields v Deliopoulos, had emphasised the necessity to 'put premises in good repair' and that the duty is strict and requires landlords to identify and rectify defects they know or should know about (Did the landlord breach... paras 1–3).
After
This VCAT decision applies those principles concretely in the public-housing context where a landlord's limited, superficial remediation after notification of water damage was found insufficient to discharge the statutory duty. The case reinforces three practical points for landlords and their agents:
A narrow cosmetic repair after reports of structural symptoms (e.g., cracking linked to water ingress) may not satisfy s 68; reasonable investigative steps (roof cavity inspection, roof framing, sub-floor assessment) will often be required.
Failure to pursue a proper investigation and to retain documentary/written contractor evidence to verify access and works can lead to adverse inferences and an acceptance of tenant evidence.
Where a causal link between negligent/inadequate repair and subsequent loss is established, the tribunal will award compensation for direct property loss and reasonable consequential costs (removalist expenses), and reimburse filing fees where the applicant is substantially successful.
The decision does not alter statutory text but exemplifies Tribunal willingness to give substantive effect to the strict wording of s 68 and to use evidentiary powers to prefer credible tenant testimony in the absence of landlord proof.
Key passages with plain-English translation
Selected passage: "I am satisfied that the landlord knew, or ought to have known, that there were serious structural issues with the rented premises and that major works were required ahead of the ceiling collapse."
Plain English: The Tribunal concluded the landlord had actual or constructive knowledge of a structural problem and should have carried out major repairs before the later collapse (Reasons para 4).
Selected passage: "What the landlord did, or more importantly didn't do, following the ceiling cracking in 2012, was grossly inadequate."
Plain English: Replacing plaster and a few tiles was not enough; the landlord failed to carry out the necessary checks and repairs after the tenant reported problems in 2012 (Did the landlord breach... para 2).
Selected passage: "If a proper investigation and thorough repair was carried out, in my view, the tenant would not have suffered the loss of her possessions in 2016. She is entitled to be compensated."
Plain English: The Tribunal found the inadequate response in 2012 caused or materially contributed to the 2016 incident, so the tenant must be paid for what she lost (Did the landlord breach... para 5).
Selected passage: "I prefer the evidence on oath of the tenant, which is supported by the landlord's invoice from Bunnings."
Plain English: The Tribunal believed the tenant over the landlord, particularly because the landlord failed to supply ordered contractor statements and the available documents supported the tenant’s account (Factual History para 4).
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This decision is most on point where the following elements are present:
A tenant reports apparent structural symptoms (cracking, water marks, plaster dust, sagging) and the landlord arranges only cosmetic or limited remedial works (plaster replacement, a small number of tiles) without a documented inspection of roof cavity, roof framing or sub-floor.
The underlying structural issue persists or worsens and later causes a significant event (ceiling collapse, major water penetration, floor collapse) that damages tenant property or renders premises unsafe.
The landlord fails to produce contemporaneous or ordered contractor reports or witness statements to explain scope of works, access issues or to rebut tenant factual claims.
A post-incident engineering report links long-standing structural movement or sub-floor/stump failure to cracking and collapse.
The tenant provides credible, unchallenged sworn evidence and photographic documentation of the damage.
In those circumstances, VCAT-type tribunals will consider whether the strict statutory duty to 'ensure' good repair was discharged and are likely to draw adverse inferences where documentary evidence is missing.
How later courts have treated it
This is a VCAT decision of a Member and the judgment itself relies on the Victorian Supreme Court's decision in Shields v Deliopoulos to articulate the strict nature of the s 68 duty (Did the landlord breach... paras 1–3). As of this decision, VCAT applied existing Supreme Court jurisprudence rather than creating a conflicting principle. The weight of this particular VCAT decision lies in its illustration of the application of Shields and its practical approach to evidentiary failures by the landlord. Practitioners should treat the decision as persuasive within tribunals and as an exposition of how s 68 has been applied at VCAT, noting higher-court authority remains binding where relevant.
(Users should check subsequent reported decisions for any refinement of these points; this deep dive is limited to the reasoning and materials in Van Ristell v Director of Housing [2017] VCAT 480).
Still-open questions
Scope of 'investigation' required after a report of cracking or water ingress:
The Tribunal criticised the lack of roof-cavity and sub-floor investigation in the 2012 works. However, the decision does not catalogue a definitive checklist of investigative steps required in every case. Reasonableness will likely depend on the facts: nature of the defect reported, age and construction of premises, presence of water-staining, prior repairs. Future cases will need to refine the threshold for when invasive investigations (roof cavity entry, structural engineer report, sub-floor inspection) become a necessary, reasonable action to satisfy s 68.
Quantification of loss and depreciation approach:
The Tribunal awarded replacement value equal to the price the tenant had paid for low-value second-hand items, reasoning the tenant should not be disadvantaged by their bargained purchase. There remains scope for divergent approaches in other cases where items have greater age or where market replacement costs differ from original purchase prices; the decision provides one approach but not an exhaustive methodology for quantification.
Interaction between public-housing administrative practices and evidentiary obligations:
Public housing authorities often work through contractors and internal systems. The Tribunal drew an adverse inference from the landlord's failure to produce contractor statements. Questions remain about how courts will balance administrative record-keeping realities against parties' obligation to preserve and produce evidence; and whether more formalised record protocols are required in public housing to guard against such inferences.
The precise boundary between cosmetic 'repair' and remediation that discharges s 68:
The Tribunal viewed the 2012 works as cosmetic and insufficient. Future cases may need to define when a replacement of plaster or tiles constitutes adequate remediation and when it is only cosmetic masking of deeper defects. The decision signals that when symptoms suggest structural causes, cosmetic fixes are unlikely to suffice.
Practical takeaways for landlords and managers: where tenants report symptoms consistent with structural issues or water ingress, a cautious approach is required: undertake and document reasonable investigations (roof cavity, roof framing, sub-floor) and obtain written contractor reports. Preserve and produce contractor statements when disputation follows; otherwise tribunals may accept tenant accounts and award compensation for losses directly traceable to a failure to ensure premises are maintained in good repair.
Judgment (48 paragraphs)
[1]
Fw: Van Ristell v Director of Housing (Residential Tenancies) [2017] VCAT 480 (6 April 2017)
[2]
Compensation claim under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act1997 - Claim by tenant for compensation for the landlord's failure to maintain the rented premises - section 68 of the Residential Tenancies Act1997 - tenant's goods destroyed by ceiling collapse - landlord on reasonable notice of potential issue following previous ceiling repair.
[3]
Van Ristell v Director of Housing (Residential Tenancies) [2017] VCAT 480
[4]
The Tribunal finds that, for the reasons provided in writing, the claims for compensation in the application have been proven:
[5]
Order the landlord to pay the tenant compensation fixed in the amount of
[6]
Further order the landlord to reimburse the tenant the application fee of $61.50.
[7]
The tenant, Holly Van Ristell ("the tenant"), might just be one of the luckiest people alive - or - one of the unluckiest. She and her son narrowly escaped serious injury when the lounge room ceiling on her Director of Housing property in Coburg ("the rented premises") collapsed in 2016.
This was not the first time there had been issues with the ceiling. In 2012, the tenant reported cracking in the plaster and dust falling from the ceiling in one of the bedrooms in the two bedroom weatherboard home.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal for compensation from the Director of Housing ("the landlord") after her possessions were destroyed in the most recent incident.
For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the landlord knew, or ought to have known, that there were serious structural issues with the rented premises and that major works were required ahead of the ceiling collapse.
Not only did the landlord have a duty of care to the tenant, but it had a strict obligation to ensure the rented premises were in good repair at the time it was alerted to the cracking in 2012. If a proper investigation and thorough repair was carried out, in my view, the tenant would not have suffered the loss of her possessions in 2016. She is entitled to be compensated.
[8]
The matter came on for hearing before me on 16 February 2017. The material put forward by the landlord was scant, unsupported and failed to address the issue of the repairs in 2012 or any report on the 2016 collapse.
The landlord was given an opportunity to put forward further material in support of its defence. I ordered the landlord provide the following information -
(a) An affidavit from Suzy Parker, including any and all exhibits and reports, that evidence the works that were carried out to the rented premises in 2012 when the bedroom ceiling collapsed. This material should refer to the actual investigation of the roof, the roof cavity and all other plaster works at the rented premises.
(b) An affidavit from Eamon Redman, including any and all exhibits and reports, that evidence the works that were carried out to the rented premises in 2016 when the lounge room ceiling collapsed. This material should refer and include witness statements from any tradesman, and/or any other agent of the landlord, who allege they attempted to contact the tenant to make arrangements to carry out the repairs.
Two affidavits were subsequently provided. This material failed to make any reference to any investigation of the roof cavity or other plaster works in 2012, or include any witness statements from tradesman engaged to carry out any works.
[9]
In 2012 the ceiling was cracking in the main bedroom of the rented premises and dust was falling on the floor. The tenant called the landlord and reported the issue.
The landlord says that on 24 July 2012, it raised a work order to "repair the cracks in bedroom 1 ceiling and to paint".[1] It says the contractor attended the rented premises, but was unable to attend to the job as "a leak was present".[2]
On 7 August 2012 a priority work order was then raised which required the following relevant works to be undertaken:
(a) "Plumbing Repairs: Please inspect leak to bed 1 GE waiting on works so can go ahead with repairs - Downpipe full of muck; cracked roof tiles
(b) Reset up to 50 loose or displaced roof tiles. Reset up to 50 tiles.
(c) Remove downpipe and clear blockage in downpipe. Unblock downpipe"[3]
On 12 September 2012, a further work order was raised in relation to the ceiling with the job description advising that "plaster cieling (sic) damaged in water leak (now fixed), water marked and cracks in plaster." The detailed description provided as follows:
(a) General Repairs - plaster ceiling (sic) damaged in water leak (now fixed). Water marked and cracks in plaster
(b) Supply and fit standard type cornice - rate per lineal metre.
(c) Supply labour - all trades. Re-fixed ceiling battens
(d) Supply and install new plaster board up to 10m2 and seal - rate per m2.[4]
The tenant says the contractor changed the ceiling and threw out the insulation. She says she was present at all times when the contractors were there and did not observe any investigation inside the roof cavity or any other room of the house.
On 8 July 2016 the tenant says the entire ceiling in the lounge room collapsed.
She says she had just left the room and had gone to have a shower. Her young son, who had been playing on the computer in the lounge room, had gone into a bedroom only moments earlier. The ceiling and insulation covered in dirt, dust and possum faeces fell onto and covered her furniture and electrical equipment. She immediately reported the incident to the landlord.
[10]
I attended the rented premises and carried out an inspection. Contractors attended at the same time and all debris was removed and arrangements were made with the contractor to secure and make safe the all (sic) remaining ceilings.[6]
[11]
The tenant says that the plaster and most of the ceiling batts were removed. No cleaning works were carried out and the lounge room and her furniture were left dusty, wet and dirty.
The landlord arranged and paid for four nights' accommodation for the tenant. She and her son stayed at the Dolma Hotel. After that she says she stayed with her mother.
The landlord says that on 11 July 2016, "the head contractor advised that they could not get access to the premises to replaster the remaining ceilings and replace the lounge room ceiling."[7] The tenant denies she was ever contacted and asked for access or that she did not make the premises available. She says a contractor attended on 13 July 2016 and screws were placed in some parts of plaster that were cracked on the ceiling in other rooms. The landlord has not provided any evidence of any work order related to the replacement of the ceiling nor a witness statement from the contractor as suggested be provided by the Tribunal's order dated 16 February 2017. An invoice from Bunnings dated 13 July 2016 provided by the landlord supports the suggestion that the contractor attended to screw the ceiling in place on that date. It was on that date the contractor purchased "screw timber tek c/seal buildx 12-11x50 HGSL C3 BX 100".
I do not accept the submission of the landlord that the tenant did not make the rented premises available for the contractor to carry out works on the ceiling. The landlord was given an opportunity to provide a witness statement from the contractor to support this assertion. For whatever reason, that statement was not provided. It is open to the Tribunal to infer from that, that the contractors evidence would not have assisted the landlord. In any event, I prefer the evidence on oath of the tenant, which is supported by the landlord's invoice from Bunnings.
It is at this point that I wish to say something about the tenant. I found her to be humble beyond her years or what you would expect from someone placed in her situation. She did not exaggerate anything but instead tended to underplay her situation. She was brutally honest about the value of the items she seeks to be compensated for, with most of the furniture and equipment being purchased from Cash Converters. When it was suggested to her that she might be entitled to a significant rent reduction for the failure of the landlord to replace the ceiling in the lounge room, she refused to amend her claim. She just wanted "". I place great weight on the evidence of the tenant, which was given on oath and about which she was questioned.
[12]
A summary of the distress is as follows: Internal (note internal painting recently undertaken covering all cracks / movement to ceilings & walls).
[13]
It then proceeds to outline all rooms in the rented premises - the entry, hall, family,[10] kitchen/meals, laundry, WC, bath, bed 1 and bed 2. All rooms have cracks to the walls of various widths and many rooms have issues with the flooring "falling away".
Under "External Observations" on page 4 of the report it states -
[14]
* Loose & missing mortar to ridge cappings (photo-035-036)
[15]
* Warped & wavy roof framing over Family & bed 1 rooms (photo-037-038)
[16]
Mr Trigar then provides an opinion on the cause of the damage, which states as far as is relevant, -
[17]
Existing concrete stumps to dwelling failing creating loose, bouncy and uneven flooring throughout. This can be caused by a combination of items, likely highly reactive clay soils, poor sub-surface drainage, poorly performing services, possible shallow founding depth of stumps, existing trees & trees that have been removed. Noticeable movement causing plaster ceiling to bow and collapse can be a combination of inadequate fixing techniques and or floor movement.
[18]
Externally majority of movement found on site has occurred to the sub floor at the front of the dwelling. Noticeably it has affected the roof framing causing it to wave & distort (over bed 1 & family rooms). The most likely cause of this movement to both roof framing and sub-floor stumps can be contributed to poor sub-surface drainage from the northern side of the dwelling, poorly performing services and trees. Due to this movement gutters are out of alignment and running in the wrong direction causing water to hold and rust out gutters and penetrate through to ceiling space.
[19]
Internally Visible cracks to plasterboard ceilings & walls throughout were found, wall cracks were mostly found to the perimeter of the dwelling. Ceiling and cornice was missing due to collapsing in the family room, this can be caused by the amount of movement to flooring and roof framing together with inadequate amount of glue used to fix the plasterboard ceiling. Bed 1 was found to have the ceiling & cornice replaced by local housing and screw fixed to the roof framing therefore the same issues would have occurred to this room. Local housing has screwed fixed the remaining ceilings throughout the dwelling while tenants were still in the residence due to OH & S issues. Flooring was found noticeably to be uneven throughout, most noticeable to bed 1, 2 and family rooms of up to 20mm falls toward the perimeter of the rooms. Due to the movement cracks have appeared to both ceiling & walls throughout.
[20]
Part of the remedial works to be carried out as recommended include -
[21]
Carefully remove roof tiles over family & bed 1 rooms and provide a builders report on existing conditions to roof framing.
[22]
Remove and replace ceiling insulation (80.0sqm) throughout dwelling.[11]
[23]
There are photos attached to the report. Photos 21 and 22 show plasterboard on the ceiling in bed 1, which has been painted in patches. It does not appear that it was fully painted when replaced in 2012.
[24]
A claim for compensation only arises if the applicant can establish that the other party to the tenancy agreement has breached either a term of the agreement, or a duty owed under the Residential Tenancies Act1997 ("the RTAct").
Once liability has been proven, the applicant must then establish that there has been some loss or damage that arises, which has not been extinguished by some offer, effort, action or inaction on behalf of either party.[12]
The tenant seeks compensation in the amount of $1,845.00, comprising the following -
[25]
removalist costs $135.00
2. Replacement of leather recliner $1,000.00
[26]
Replacement of sofa couch purchased from the Op Shop $80.00
[27]
Laptop $320.00
2. TV $150.00
3. Playstation 3 $120.00
4. Logitech speakers $40.00.
The landlord denies liability and says it did not breach its duty to maintain the rented premises. It does not challenge the amounts being sought by the tenant or that all of the items were damaged in the ceiling collapse.
[28]
Did the landlord breach its duty to maintain the rented premises?
[29]
The landlord has a duty to maintain the rented premises in good repair, under section 68 of the RTAct. The section states -
[30]
(1) A landlord must ensure that the rented premises are maintained in good repair.
[31]
In Shields v Deliopoulos[2016] VSC 500, Associate Justice Daly said that the duty to maintain the rented premises begins as soon as the tenancy commences -
[32]
"... in order to maintain premises in good repair during the course of a tenancy it must be necessary to put them in good repair in the first place ...".[13]
[33]
Her Honour went further to say that the landlord has an ongoing obligation to also identify any defects in relation to the rented premises-
[34]
"In particular, I accept that the duty imposed upon a landlord to "ensure that rental premises are 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."[14]
[35]
"The strict obligation imposed by s 68 is consistent with the presence of the word "ensure" in s 68 of the RTA, which the authorities suggest is synonymous with "make sure"."[15]
[36]
A landlord must ensure the premises are in good repair.
What the landlord did, or more importantly didn't do, following the ceiling cracking in 2012, was grossly inadequate. Merely replacing the ceiling plaster and a few tiles, without further investigation of the cause of the cracking or a report to determine if other parts of the ceiling needed to be replaced, failed to make the rented premises safe, let alone satisfy the obligation on the landlord to ensure the rented premises were in good repair.
The suggestion from the report of the engineer is that the "cracks" in other parts of the house were painted over. It is unclear from the report when this painting work was carried out. The photos of the ceiling in bedroom one only show patches of paint, so while the ceiling was replaced, it wasn't painted at that time or subsequently. There is no work order from the landlord to suggest that an investigation was carried out in 2012, and the tenant has given evidence that she did not observe any investigation works. It would appear from the evidence that the landlord only instructed its tradesmen to replace a few tiles and replaster the ceiling.
If there had been water leaking back into the roof cavity as suggested by the work order dated 7 August 2012 and the subsequent engineers report, then at a minimum there should have been investigative works to determine if the insulation had been affected or plaster in other parts of the house had been compromised. The engineer's report has suggested that the structural issues now present would also be to blame for cracking the ceiling in 2012. It describes the roof above the lounge room and bedroom as being "warped". This warping must have been evident when the roof tiles were replaced in 2012, as there is no suggestion in the engineer's report of any tiles having cracked.
I would go so far as to suggest that the works carried out in 2012 merely masked a more serious problem that was destined to reoccur.
Taking into account the deficient investigative and repair works in 2012, and the subsequent engineer's report about the cause of the ceiling collapse in 2016, I am satisfied that the landlord knew or ought to have known that the premises were not in good repair. In failing to carry out works to put the premises in good repair, the landlord has breached its duty under the RTAct.
[37]
The unchallenged evidence of the tenant is that a number of her personal items were damaged in the ceiling collapse. I was provided photographic evidence of each of the items, both while some were buried under the debris and others when most of the debris had been removed. I am satisfied that all of these items were damaged beyond repair.
Given the low amount paid for the items at the time of purchase, I am also satisfied that the tenant got them for a bargain and should not be at a disadvantage in now replacing them. Even taking into account the added age of the items, she will struggle to find them now for the same price. The tenant has lost the benefit of these items due to no fault of her own. In my view she is entitled to be fully compensated for the price she paid for these items, and I will award her the full amount.
In my view, based on the evidence in this matter, the tenant is also entitled to reimbursement for removalist costs. It is true on the one hand that there is no certainty about the life of a tenancy, but this is more so in private rentals than in public housing. In any event the tenant did not want to move. However she felt so unsafe having had ceiling issues for a second time in four years, that she did not want to return to living in the rented premises. The engineers report has proven her fears were founded. I am satisfied that but for the landlords failure to ensure the rented premises were maintained in good repair, the tenant would not have had to vacate and incur removalist costs. She is entitled to be reimbursed this amount.
I will make an order that the landlord pay the tenant compensation in the amount of $1,845.00.
[38]
The tenant paid a fee of $61.50 to initiate proceedings in the Tribunal. She has been substantially successful in her claim and is entitled to be reimbursed this amount, pursuant to section 115B of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act1998. I will make a further order to this effect.
[39]
[1] Affidavit of Suzana Parker, Housing Services Officer for Director of Housing dated 7 March 2017.
[40]
[3] Department of Human Services "Schedule of Contract Order" Job No 73873959, issued on 7/8/2012. Items not relevant to this proceeding have been excluded.
[41]
[4] Department of Human Services "Schedule of Contract Order" Job No 74234320, issued on 12/9/12. Items not relevant to this proceeding have been excluded.
[42]
[5] Department of Human Services - Schedule of Contract Order - Job No 88156029 dated 8 July 2016.
[43]
[6] Affidavit of Eamon Redmond dated 7 March 2017.
[44]
[8] Letter from landlord dated 15 August 2016, marked "Without Prejudice" to the tenant, with Deed of Mutual Release, attached to the Affidavit of Suzy Parker, Housing Services Officer dated 7 March 2017.
[45]
[9] Affidavit of Eamon Redmond dated 7 March 2017.
[46]
[10] The family room referred to in the report is the lounge room as described in these reasons.
Order that the Director of Housing pay the tenant compensation of $1,845.00 for landlords' failure to maintain premises and reimburse the application fee of $61.50 (VCAT order dated 6 April 2017).
The landlord raised a work order for contractors to immediately attend the site and clear the debris. The work order states -
General Repairs: ceiling in the loungeroom has come down
Clean up and remove rubbish from unit or vacant land up to 3m3. - Medium Compacted Load. works carried out as per request from Eamon of BMOH offices on site.[5]
Eamon Redmond, a field services officer for the landlord, attended the rented premises that day -
enough money to buy a couch to sit on
The parties agree that there were no further attempts by the landlord to replace the ceiling, or do any further work at the rented premises, until after the tenant vacated on 1 September 2016.
On 11 July 2016, the tenant was offered alternate accommodation in Glenroy. The tenant says she rejected the offer as she has a school aged son and the property was too far away from Coburg. The landlord secured an alternate property, this time in Heidelberg West. A new tenancy agreement for this property was signed on 26 July 2016.
On 15 August 2016, the landlord made an offer to resolve the matter. It offered $359.00 for damage to a lounge chair and an electrical appliance without admitting liability.[8] The tenant did not accept this offer. The landlord has credited the tenant's new tenancy account for ten days of rent from 22 August 2016. The tenant paid rent on both the rented premises and the new tenancy property between 26 July 2016 and 22 August 2016.
On 8 September 2016, the landlord says "it was determined that an engineer assessments (sic) of the dwelling were necessary. The request for building movement investigation was approved by the Housing Manager".[9]
The engineering report from David Trigar, Project Manager, Engineering Services is titled "Building Movement Program" and is dated 19 October 2016. A copy was provided to the Tribunal.
On page 3 of the report at point 4 under the heading "Description and Causes of Damage" it states -