(a) On 11 July 2024, three renters (KKP, TWY, and SRJ) signed a 12-month rental agreement with the rental providers in respect of the rented premises in Victoria that is the subject of this application.

(b) An entry condition report ('entry report') was prepared prior to the renters taking possession of the rented premises.

(c) On or around 23 July 2024, the renters took possession of rented premises pursuant to this rental agreement.

(d) On or around 29 June 2024, the renters returned a copy of the entry report. While no party filed a copy of the entry report, it was conceded that issues were raised regarding the condition of the rented premises. The parties differed regarding precisely what matters were recorded in the condition report.

(e) Issues were subsequently raised by the renters regarding the condition of the premises as per the matters referred to below. While there was dispute between the parties regarding the nature of these issues and whether one or more of the renters had hampered these issues being addressed, it was not disputed that these issues had not been completely addressed. Mr Severs, one of the agents for the rental providers at the hearing, was not able to conclusively state "where and when" the issues were raised. At least one breach notice referred to the entry report and alleged issues identified in the entry report.

(f) A breach notice was issued by the renters on 22 October 2024, among other things, dealing with the repair of a gate. On SRJ's evidence, some, but not all, of the issues referred to in the breach notice were subsequently addressed.

(g) On 22 May 2025, SRJ spoke to the then managing agent regarding what were said to be outstanding issues of repair at the rented premises (apparently, including issues with a stove burner, a gate and a toilet).

(h) A decision was made by the rental providers to issue a notice to vacate ('notice'), dated 16 June 2025, on the renters pursuant to s 91ZZD of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) ('RT Act'). The renters do not dispute service of the notice.

(i) A breach notice was issued by the renters on 22 June 2025 regarding issues of security at the rented premises.

(j) A breach notice was issued by the renters on 4 July 2025 regarding a dripping tap and a toilet neither of which were immediately fixed.

(k) Two renters (KKP and TWY) vacated the rented premises around the end of July 2025.

(l) In other proceedings, the Tribunal refused an application by the renters to assign the rental agreement to SRJ alone.

(m) For the existing period of the rental agreement and up to the date of the hearing in this application, the rent continued to be paid in compliance with the RT Act and/or rental agreement.

(n) At some point, SRJ revoked consent to serve notices by electronic means.

RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROVIDER'S SUBMISSIONS RENTER'S CASE AND SUBMISSIONS

1. This is an application by the rental providers seeking possession pursuant to the notice to vacate that was issued pursuant to s 91ZZD of the RT Act.
2. Notices issued pursuant to s 91ZZD are not "for cause", s 91ZZD arising in circumstances where a rental provider gives the prescribed notice prior to the end of an initial fixed term rental agreement.[1]
3. Regarding the evidence filed and served and otherwise adduced by/for the rental providers at the hearing:

(a) The rental providers filed and served very limited evidence in relation to the circumstances surrounding the notice being issued. This is despite SRJ filing a separate s 91ZZS application (which was struck out by the Tribunal because that section does not apply to s 91ZZD notices) squarely putting the notice in issue and also filing detailed submissions in advance of this proceeding.[2] The agents for the rental providers sought to file documents during the hearing. SRJ objected to this course. The Tribunal did not permit this (and made it clear at the beginning of the hearing that the parties' documentary cases would be restricted to those documents filed and served in accordance with the orders of the Tribunal.

(b) Neither rental provider appeared at the hearing and gave oral evidence, nor did any previous agent give evidence. The oral evidence given on behalf of the rental providers was given by Mr Severs. He stated that he had managed the rented premises in the three months preceding the hearing, that period commencing after the decision was made to give the notice and the notice was served.

1. No direct evidence was filed/served or led orally regarding the genesis of, nor the reason for, the decision of the rental providers to give the notice.
2. In making submissions regarding the reasonable and proportionate test, the agents who appeared at the hearing submitted that the rental providers were concerned about the financial position of SRJ. Evidence was adduced that the total rent on the rented premises constituted 64% of SRJ's income, alone. The agents did not dispute, however, that the other renters were also still contractually bound to pay the rent and that there had not been any issue with arrears to date.
3. The agents who appeared at the hearing submitted that the rental providers were concerned that if SRJ's position changed adversely, it was not clear how that would be navigated. The agents did not dispute that this had not happened to date and that it may not happen in the future.
4. The agents who appeared at the hearing submitted that there had been difficulties in managing the rental agreement but submitted that the notice was not retaliatory. Mr Severs said there were people whom the rental could have called to give evidence regarding this, but did not explain why they had not been called. No specific evidence was adduced to this end, although it was noted that electronic consent had been revoked and telephone contact was difficult.
5. In answer to questions put in cross-examination, Mr Severs, who had been managing the rental agreement for the last three months, stated that no evidence had been adduced regarding difficulties of management prior to his appointment and no breaches of the rental agreement had been committed by SRJ during Mr Severs' management of the rented premises.
6. For completeness, there was no suggestion of any relevant financial hardship on the part of the rental providers.

1. A volume of medical evidence was filed and served regarding SRJ. It is unnecessary for that to be outlined here. The evidence was not disputed by the rental providers.
2. SRJ also filed and served a range of other documents setting out what were alleged to be their attempts to compel the rental providers to address issues with maintenance at the rented premises.
3. SRJ alleged that the returning of the entry report, the 2024 breach notice, and the telephone call to the then agent on 22 May 2025, amounted to the exercise of rights under the RT Act and a report under s 72AA of the RT Act. SRJ submitted that the notice was issued a month after that telephone call (the decision to issue having been made prior to the notice being issued).
4. SRJ's solicitors noted that while the rental providers alleged that there were struggles/difficulties in managing the rental agreement, no evidence had been provided to substantiate this.
5. Regarding the reasonable and proportionate test, the solicitors for SRJ had filed medical evidence, which was not in dispute, which they submitted should persuade the Tribunal that SRJ would be markedly impacted if a possession order was made, that SRJ already suffers daily hardship and that SRJ would suffer severe distress if they were forced to seek new accommodation. They did not have any family or friends that they could reside with so there was a real risk of homelessness.
6. The solicitors for SRJ submitted that there had never been any breaches by the renters to date and that the rent would continue to be paid in the future.
7. The solicitors for SRJ submitted that there was no evidence of any competing hardship for the rental providers. For this reason, the Tribunal should conclude that the balance fell in favour of the renters and not grant a possession order.

1. At the start of the hearing, the Tribunal explained to the parties that in relation to the possession application, the rental providers bore the onus of proving their case on the balance of probabilities.
2. The Tribunal noted that SRJ then bore the onus, to the same standard, of making out the separate contention that s 91ZZI(4) was enlivened.
3. The Tribunal indicated that it would reach its decision based on the documents filed and served in accordance with the Tribunal's orders and based on the oral evidence adduced at the hearing.
4. SRJ was the remaining renter at the rented premises, but the other two renters are still contractually obliged to pay rent despite having vacated the premises. There was undisputed evidence that rent had been paid properly before and after the two renters vacated with no breaches being alleged against any renter.
5. At the time the notice was given, all three renters lived at the rented premises. Two renters vacated about a month or more after the notice was issued. For that reason, their vacating could not have conceivably played any role in the rental providers' decision to issue the notice. At the time of the notice being issued, there was no issue of the financial viability of the renters, there being no arrears at any point.
6. The application was made pursuant to a notice issued under s 91ZZD of the RT Act.[3] For the application to be successful, the Tribunal was required to be satisfied that the notice was valid and, if so, to then have regard to the reasonable and proportionate test set out in s 330A of the RT Act.

1. The validity of notice was directly challenged by SRJ pursuant to s 91ZZI(4). This issue was squarely raised by SRJ in their evidence and submissions. Detailed documents were filed and served by SRJ regarding issues being raised with the managing agent in respect of the rented premises.
2. The rental providers effectively adduced no evidence on this point. This forensic decision by the rental providers was accompanied by a corresponding decision to effectively adduce no evidence regarding the circumstances of and reasons for the giving of the s 91ZZD notice.
3. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was more likely that the notice was issued as retaliation. The evidence was strong in this regard. Had proper evidence been adduced by the rental providers, they may have satisfied the Tribunal that this allegation was not made out, but the weight of evidence was entirely the other way. Pursuant to s 91ZZI(4), the notice is of no effect.

1. Even had the Tribunal not been satisfied that s 91ZZI(4) was engaged and that the notice was effective, the Tribunal would not have been satisfied that it was reasonable and proportionate to grant a possession order.
2. The Tribunal accepted SRJ's position that there is substantial uncontradicted evidence that SRJ would suffer hardship. The Tribunal also accepted the submission that there is no evidence of competing hardship on the part of the rental providers. Relevantly, the rent had not fallen into arrears since the two other renters had vacated the rented premises.[4]

ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 80 OF THE VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1998

1. Having regard to the evidence, including medical evidence, adduced by SRJ, the Tribunal was satisfied that is it appropriate to grant an anonymisation order pursuant to s 80 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) in respect of the parties' names.
2. The rental providers did not object to this course.

[1] Other than in respect of limited transitional notices, s 91ZZD has now been abrogated.

[2] In respect of the s 91ZZS application, the Tribunal made an order, on 3 December 2025, ordering that the s 91ZZS application be heard at the same time as this application. Those orders adjourned the hearing that was to be heard that day and directed the rental provider to file responsive documents by 12 December 2025. In the instant proceeding, similar orders were made that same day adjourning the hearing. The proceedings had both already been adjourned a number of times before the hearing on 3 December 2025.

[3] SRJ did not dispute service of the notice or of the subsequent application but disputed validity of the notice.

[4] The reasonable and proportionate test does not contain a relative hardship test. It does set out factors which require the Tribunal to consider, among other things, issues of hardship, however, relevant to the overall weighing up of whether it is reasonable and proportionate to grant a possession order. All the factors set out in s 330A are considered within the framework of the rental agreement which forms the basis of the legal relationship between the parties.