1. Pursuant to clause 55(1) of the standard residential tenancy terms the Lessor is required to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to their condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
2. In Withers-Norris v Pastrello[15] the tribunal considered decisions of earlier tribunals in relation to clause 55 of the standard residential tenancy terms in Brogan Prestige Properties v Strand & Black (Brogan)[16] and Saleem & Gizgeez v Abeeygunasekara & Jeevanthan (Saleem & Gizgeez)[17]and said:

In Irena Peters v Commissioner for Housing for the ACT [2006] the then Residential Tenancies Tribunal decided that a lessor's obligation to repair under standard residential tenancy terms 54 and 55 is framed in mandatory terms, i.e. the lessor "shall" maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. It is therefore not a defence to any landlord to plead that reasonable steps were taken to rectify either patent or latent defects. The test is whether these defects were in fact remedied such as to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

1. In Salem and Gizgeez at [44] the tribunal said:

The obligation to maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair, imposed by clause 55 of the standard terms on the lessor, is a mandatory obligation that is not diminished by the fact that the need for repairs is due to fault on the part of a third party, or by reliance on a third party to undertake repairs.

1. The Tribunal agrees with those views.
2. The Tenant said that when he moved into the property about 11 years ago the spa leaked and it caused damage to the ceiling. He said he reported it "within the first six months of the lease commencing back in 2006."[18] As stated above, the Tenant did not provide the Tribunal with copies of any of the inspection reports or any documentary evidence corroborating this evidence. He did not subpoena the reports for the hearing.
3. The Lessor's agents provided copies of reports dated 7 August 2012 and 1 February 2013 and then the six monthly reports from 14 August 2014 until 21 March 2017 when the Tenant demanded that only one agent conduct the routine inspection and in order to do that she remove her shoes. When the agent refused to remove her shoes due to occupational health and safety concerns the Tenant then shut the front door and the routine inspection did not take place.
4. No routine inspections have been undertaken since September 2016 notwithstanding that LJ Hooker filed an application on behalf of the Lessor with the tribunal on 6 April 2017 seeking an access order and the tribunal made an order that the Lessor be granted access to the premises on 6 July 2017 from 9am to 11am. The Tenant appealed this decision. Presidential Member McCarthy heard the appeal and on 30 August 2017 made orders providing for two persons from LJ Hooker to access the property and to conduct a routine inspection on 14 September 2017 between the hours of 9am and 11am. The property manager, Emily Glover, and Robert Murphy, a registered agent with LJ Hooker for the last 19 years, attended the property on 14 September 2017. The Tenant initially refused access to Mr Murphy and then refused access to both agents.
5. The Tenant said he believed that the spa leaked in a number of places, from the grout along the ledge at the end of the spa bath where shower water occasionally splashed; from a leaking jet and from the spa pump. He said that the agents had plumbers look at it multiple times most recently "about a month ago, a month or maybe two months ago now"[19] - but none of them have fixed it. He queried whether the plumber the agent had sent was actually a plumber. He said "the best they (the plumber) did was the other day they put some silicone over where some grout should be."[20] He told the Tribunal that the silicone was utterly useless. He also said that the leak from the spa had caused a stain on the ceiling of the living room and provided photographic evidence of the stain.
6. The routine inspection report dated 14 August 2014 included the reference to the stain from a leak in the lounge ceiling and the spa possibly leaking. The agent commented as follows:

Lounge Room- Satisfactory condition-No action required by tenant or landlord-This room was presented in a neat and tidy condition, with no visual maintenance issues. Old leak stain. Possibly from spa; Repaint ceiling in future; see image one (a photograph).

1. In the body of the next routine inspection report dated 18 February 2015 under 'Recommended Maintenance' the Agent has stated:

Spa bath from one of the jets. Would recommend this is repaired. Water stain from lounge ceiling from the leak

Leak from the spa. Tenant has advised that he doesn't use the spa and the water stain has not gotten worse.

Should you have any questions, comments or would like any recommended maintenance actioned contained in this inspection, please don't hesitate to contact your Property Manager at LJ Hooker Belconnen

1. In the routine inspection report dated 1 September 2015 the stated recommended maintenance was "spa and gate need to be repaired" and under 'Work to be carried out by the Landlord' the report stated - "Gate needs repaired and spa still leaking however tenant doesn't use spa."
2. It was put to the Tenant in cross examination that the first report to the agents of the broken spa was during the routine inspection on 12 August 2014 as evidenced in the inspection report in Exhibit R1. The Tenant told the Tribunal that that was false.
3. In her evidence Ms Fowler told the Tribunal that she started doing the inspections on 18 February 2015. During the inspection on 1 September 2015 the Tenant said to her he wasn't too concerned about the spa not being repaired. She said after this inspection:

I also sent someone out to have a look at the spa and they said that the jet was leaking and to repair it they would have to basically rip out the ensuite to get to the jet because the access panel was too small to get to it.[21]

1. The Tenant told the Tribunal that he had asked the plumber at the inspection "what needs to be done?" and when the plumber said that that the whole thing had to be ripped out he had said:

Well, I'm busy. I need my quiet enjoyment. I've been harassed enough already. I would need to find out whether or not what ACAT is going to do before he's going to come and rip it out.[22]

1. Ms Fowler also told the Tribunal that she carried out the inspections on 7 March 2016 and 29 September 2016 and while there was no mention of the spa in either of these reports she knew about it and also knew that the Tenant had told her previously that he didn't want the spa repaired because he doesn't need it or use it. The Tenant told the Tribunal:

I put it to the court that I never said that I didn't need the spa fixed.[23]

1. The Tenant also queried the plumber's opinion that the whole spa needed to come out, telling the Tribunal that:

...originally all that needed replacing was the jet and a bit of grout. Now it looks like the seals and the pump have gone. They've left it so long. So, you know, that does complicate it a little bit but it's still a minor fix. What goes in does come out and there is ample space there to remove that pump without ripping out the whole bathroom, which is what was put to me which I thought was totally excessive.[24]

1. The Tenant did not call any expert evidence or any other evidence to support his opinion that the repair work was "a minor fix" and that the plumber's proposed repair work was "totally excessive". In these circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that the repair as identified by the plumber engaged by the managing agent was 'totally excessive'.
2. The Tenant originally sought a rent reduction of $100 a week and $10,000 compensation for the defective spa. He said that was because he thought $10,000 was the maximum amount he could claim. The jurisdiction of the tribunal under the RTA has always been $25,000.[25] In any event the Tenant told the Tribunal that he was seeking the maximum amount under the RTA, $25,000. In relation to the rent reduction the Tenant initially told the Tribunal that he was seeking five per cent reduction in rent for the loss of the utility of the spa for the 11 years of the tenancy agreement which he said was about $12,000. Shortly afterwards the Tenant increased the amount he sought for rent reduction to ten per cent of the rent which he said he based on the fact that the space of the spa was about ten per cent of the property. He calculated this amount at $166.80 a month from 1 October 2006 which totalled $23,612.20.
3. When the Tenant was asked how he had worked out $25,000 to compensate him for the damage to him from the defective spa he said:
   1. So the spa has been broken for 11 years, so I took 11 years' rent multiplied by five per cent for the loss of utility due to the broken spa and its about $12,000.

My back is buggered at the moment. I have got like a really bad back. One of the reasons I moved in there was to have nice hot spas with jets going into my back to massage the muscles in my back. Heat therapy. I'm a big believer in it.

I have a business called For Seasons and I import heating products, thermally heated products, and its perfect for people like me who have a bad back. Now, I know spas do a fantastic job for people like me with sore backs but I can't use this spa (a) because it leaks and (b) because it will cause damage to my property which it has done. So what do I do? I go down to Belconnen Mall and get the Magic Massage and it's great but it costs me 50 bucks each time. Now, these are costs that I incur which I shouldn't have to because I've got a spa in my place. Unfortunately it doesn't work and the lessor won/t fix it.[26]

1. So how often do you get a magic massage?
2. Month to month. Whenever the back goes; like I need one right now ...
3. How long? Over how many years do you say or is it less than years you've been getting these massages?
4. No, I've been getting these massages since I was about 16 years old. That's why I got a place with a spa.
5. All right. So you've said you're claiming five per cent loss of use of the spa for the whole 11 years?
6. Can I make it 10 per cent, actually, because now that I think about it I was being a bit generous there? I want 10 per cent. That's about 10 per cent of the property, that space and that spa. That's a big drawcard for me and it's been taken away and they've done nothing to fix it.[27]

1. ... 10 per cent of that amount ($1,668 monthly rent) if you can't work it out, is $166.80.[28] ... You get to $23,612.20 (from 1/10/06 to 1/10/17).[29]

1. So that's what I want as a reduction in my rent due to the loss of utility from the malfunctioning spa, not to mention the damage to my computer from the malfunctioning spa and the water which has been confirmed by their own tradie.[30]

1. The issue for the Tribunal is that, while it can be satisfied from the routine inspection report of 14 August 2014 that the agents were then made aware of the leaking spa, in the next routine inspection report dated 18 February 2015 the Tenant is reported as stating that he doesn't use the spa. At the hearing the Tenant denied that he had told the agents that he didn't use the spa. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that the entry on the routine inspection report dated 18 February 2015 is a contemporary record at the time of or shortly after the conversation between the Tenant and the managing agent at the property. The Tribunal is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did make this statement.
2. The Tribunal noted the evidence that the agents had attempted to arrange for the spa to be repaired and had a plumber inspect the spa. The Tenant was irritated by the fact that the plumber had to seek further instructions from the Lessor in relation to the actual repairs to be carried out. The Tenant opposed the repairs which the plumber recommended and which involved the whole unit being removed. In these circumstances, unsurprisingly, the spa has not been repaired.
3. It was not clear to the Tribunal why the Tenant had not filed his application for rent reduction or compensation in relation to the faulty spa until 2017. On his evidence the spa had been defective since approximately six months after the tenancy commenced in 2006. A party seeking compensation under the RTA has a general duty to mitigate. Section 38 of the RTA states:

A person who, apart from this section, would be entitled to compensation under this Act is not entitled to the compensation, or part of it, if the loss, or part of the loss, to be compensated could have been reasonably avoided.

1. The Tribunal has already found above, on the balance of probabilities that the tenant reported to the agents during the routine inspection on 12 August 2014 that the spa might be leaking. The report of that inspection, under 'Work to be carried out by the Landlord', stated the spa was possibly leaking and asked the landlord to contact the property manager in relation to the maintenance actions in the report. It was not readily apparent from the evidence if the Lessor had requested the agent to have the spa inspected after receiving this report. The spa was still listed as a maintenance issue in the next routine inspection report.
2. In these circumstances the Tribunal is satisfied that the Tenant notified the agent of the issues with the spa on 12 August 2014. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the repairs were urgent however the spa should have been inspected and the repairs completed within four weeks of the notification. This did not happen. While the property had an ensuite and a bathroom and the tenant was the only occupant during the relevant period from 12 August 2014, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Tenant was not able to use the spa facility from 12 August 2014 which was the date of the inspection. The Lessor is allowed four weeks after the notification to carry out the repairs, namely by 9 September 2014.[31] The Tribunal is satisfied and finds that the Tenant told the agent at the inspection on 5 February 2015 that he did not use the spa. The agent was entitled to infer that the Tenant did not seek that the spa be repaired from that date.
3. Having considered all the evidence and the submissions, for the above reasons the Tribunal finds that the Tenant is entitled to compensation from 9 September 2014 to 5 February 2015, a period of approximately five months.
4. How much compensation is to be ordered?
5. In the NSWCTTT decision, Rouvellas v Culley[32] (Rouvellas) the tenants reported the spa in the main bedroom malfunctioning on 27 June 2008. This was repaired on 13 February 2009. The tenants sought $12.00 per week reduction for the loss of its use. They were paying weekly rent of $650.00. The amount sought was approximately two percent of the weekly rent paid. The NSWCTTT found that:

the amount sought does not appear unreasonable and allowing time for investigation and repair, the Tribunal orders that the rent be reduced by $12.00 per week from 11 July 2008 until 13 February 2009 (total $372.00).

1. In the 2010 NSWCTTT decision of Wheatcroft v Dartnell[33] that tribunal considered a claim for the loss of use of a spa for a short period, a leaking shower and for the failure to provide exclusive possession to a shed on the property. The NSWCTTT said, in relation to the spa:

The spa bath has recently been fixed and I am satisfied that the tenant has not had proper use of this facility. There is no evidence to support the proposition by the landlord that the tenant has caused or permitted the damage to the spa. The landlord has been reasonable in difficult circumstances to attempt rectification of the spa but the fact remains that it was facility not available to the tenant. ...

The Tribunal makes an order in the sum of $150.00 compensation in respect of the spa.

1. In the present matter, the Tenant was paying $430 rent a week in September 2014. The rent paid for the three weeks from 10 September to 30 September 2014 was $1,290. On 1 October 2014 the rent was reduced to $410 a week. The period 1 October 2014 to 5 February 2015 is 18 weeks and the total rent paid in this period was $7,380. The total rent paid was $8,670. If the Tribunal followed Rouvellas the compensation would total $173.40. The Tribunal notes that Rouvellas was decided in 2009, some eight years ago. The Tribunal noted that $12 a week rent reduction was what the tenants sought in Rouvellas. It is not a significant amount. The Tenant told the Tribunal that the spa was an important feature of the property because of problems he had had with his back since he was 16. He did not provide any medical evidence to corroborate his back problems nor did he provide copies of receipts evidencing payments of back massages he had had during this five months period which might have assisted his claim. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that, for the Tenant, the spa was attractive for him.
2. Having considered all of the evidence and the submissions, for the above reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the amount of compensation payable to the Tenant is assessed at five percent of the rent he paid during the period 10 September 2014 to 5 February 2015, $433.50.

1. During the Tenant's evidence it became apparent that the Tenant had based this claim on the Lessor breaching clause 86 of the standard residential tenancy terms - that the state of the carpet and the curtains was such that the property was not fit for habitation.[34]
2. Mr Halcombe described the carpet as fraying, having exposed nails and holes. He also said it was 20 years old, filthy and disgusting. He was asking for new carpet.[35] He said that another reason he wanted the carpet replaced was that the seals at the bottom of the toilet had started to leak while he was overseas and that had caused an unsightly stain on the carpet at the front of the bathroom. He variously told the Tribunal "if I don't get new carpet I'm asking for the rent to be reduced. So, if that doesn't happen then, yes, I'll be putting in a claim straightaway."[36] He also said - "If there's not an order to install new carpet in the property then I will be putting in an application for a rent decrease."[37] Later in the hearing he said "I am not asking for compensation. I don't think it is really important. I've been asking for it and here's the evidence to show that I want it done. It's 20-year-old carpet."[38] Notwithstanding that it appeared from these statements that the Tenant may not have intended to proceed with these claims at the hearing, as the Tenant had raised the carpet and curtains in his amended application the Tribunal considered these claims.
3. In response to questions from the Tribunal, the Tenant said he had been notifying the Lessor's agent about the carpet at inspections for about the last three years. He provided some coloured photographs of carpeted areas in the property which appeared to show some signs of wear. However, the routine inspection reports from 14 April 2014 to 29 September 2016 do not raise maintenance issues about the carpet. Apart from the photographs he tendered, the Tenant did not otherwise provide any documentary evidence at the hearing supporting his claim that he had been notifying the agent about the carpet for the last three years. Copies of the inspection reports were provided to the Tenant. It appears he did not question the contents of these reports.
4. The managing agent said that the carpet and curtains were in good condition at the last routine inspection conducted on 29 September 2016. Since then the agent has not been able to inspect the property as the Tenant firstly refused access unless the agent removed her shoes[39] and secondly refused to comply with a Tribunal order requiring the Tenant to permit access to two agents on 14 September 2017. The routine inspection reports do not support the Tenant's claim.
5. The Tenant told the Tribunal that he had raised the need for the curtains to be replaced many times over the years and that he was not seeking compensation for the current curtains; rather he was seeking new curtains. He relied on a photograph of one set of curtains which he had provided at the hearing in Exhibit A to support his claim. Later during the hearing he submitted to the Tribunal:

...it doesn't sound like they're going to agree to putting in curtains, even though there's provisions under the Residential Tenancies Act if the place is unfit for habitation. I would say that light shining through my curtains and big gaps in the fence constitutes unfit habitation ....[40]

1. Ms Fowler had attached photographs taken at the inspection on 28 August 2015. She said that the Tenant thereafter refused permission for her to take photographs or to use electronic devices in the property when she conducted routine inspections.
2. As stated above the routine inspection reports do not support the Tenant's claim for the carpet to be replaced. The inspection reports also do not support the Tenant's claim for the curtains to be replaced. The Lessor opposes the orders sought by the Tenant in relation to the carpet and curtains.
3. In considering the Tenant's claim that the property was unfit for habitation the Tribunal notes that the decision of the South Australian District Court in Hampel v South Australian Housing Trust[41] contains a useful summary of the common law on the fitness of premises for human habitation and then states:

In my opinion a house is unfit for human habitation if an occupier could be expected to suffer physical injury or injury to health from the ordinary use of the premises. It may be so unfit for any reason. The risk to health or safety may arise because the premises are in a state of disrepair or dilapidation or because of a lack of facilities such as the provision of adequate water, light, ventilation and so on.

1. The Tribunal rejects the Tenant's claim that the property is unfit for habitation because of light shining through the curtains. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that could satisfy it that that there was a risk to the Tenant's health and safety because of the condition of the curtains. While the carpet had shown some wear and in one photograph provided by the Tenant it appeared that part of a hand was holding up the edge of the carpet which had been physically lifted up for the photograph, to show tacks, the Lessor and his agents have not been able to inspect the condition of the property for two years. In the absence of the Tenant providing written notice to the agents of items he sought to have repaired or replaced, it is during routine inspections that the agents are able to assess the condition of the property and report any maintenance or other work needed to the Lessor. The Tribunal is not satisfied from the evidence that the property was in a state of disrepair or dilapidation or that its condition was such that the Tenant could be expected to suffer physical injury.
2. Having considered all of the evidence and the submissions and for the above reasons the Tribunal rejects the Tenant's claim that the carpet and curtains at the property be replaced or that his rent be reduced. That claim is dismissed.

1. The Tenant described staining and missing grout in the shower area. He said that he wanted the shower fixed properly, not with silicone but with grout.[42] He also said he had told the agents about 12 to 18 months ago about the staining in the shower. He did not provide documentary evidence corroborating this 'notification' to the agency. The Lessor opposes this part of the application.
2. The Tribunal is satisfied that the repairs to the grouting have been carried out. While the Tenant wanted the missing grout repaired with grout and not silicone, without the benefit of expert evidence in relation to the grouting the Tribunal is not satisfied that the silicone repair actually carried out was defective. The Tenant did not provide evidence to support his claim in relation to the grouting and the staining in the shower. In these circumstances, the Tribunal dismisses the Tenant's claim in relation to the grouting and the shower stain.

1. The Tenant introduced this claim during the hearing. At its highest it appears that the tenant's evidence was that the kitchen sink had been leaking and the leak caused some of his dishwashing tablets under the sink to disintegrate. He did not provide evidence which would enable the Tribunal to ascertain when he reported the leaking sink to the agent and when the repairs were carried out. In fact the only evidence was the Tenant's statement:

Not to mention the damage underneath my bathroom sink. I'm sorry; the kitchen sink which leaks, which he was supposed to fix the other day, which he hasn't fixed, which continues to leak and cause damage to my cleaning products. It's actually pretty expensive to buy tablets for your washing machine, your dishwasher. You know, they're actually pretty pricey and once you've got water all through it they're pretty nasty. They'll disintegrate and dissolve everywhere so I would appreciate some compensation for the 10, 20, 30 bucks of dishwashing tabs that have been disintegrated.[43]

1. Notwithstanding the Tenant's evidence the Tribunal cannot determine whether the Tenant is basing this claim on the Lessor breaching clause 57 or any other clause of the standard residential tenancy terms. It appears to the Tribunal that the Tenant raised this 'claim' during the hearing on the spur of the moment. In these circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied, in relation to the claim for lost dishwashing tablets, that the Lessor has breached any of the standard residential tenancy terms. This claim is dismissed.
2. The Tribunal will consider the Tenant's claim in relation to the fence palings and graffiti below under 'Quiet Enjoyment'.

Quiet enjoyment and claim for reimbursement of $24,750 for the Canberra Crime Report

1. The Tenant claimed that the Lessor had breached clause 52 of the Standard Terms as he had caused or permitted interference with the Tenant's reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in his use of the property.
2. The Tenant gave the following examples of the breaches of his quiet enjoyment of the property:
   • (a) He had video footage of two drunks fighting out the front of his property last night.[44]
   • (b) The graffiti across the front fence.[45]
   • (c) All the nails sticking out and the fence palings falling off.[46]
   • (d) "All the damage. ... people are moving out of that place because somebody got raped at the back, or allegedly."[47]
   • (e) "There's lunatics moving in, like bogans who sit there working on their cars all day revving their engines and drinking and smoking in the carpark. They don't do anything about it. There's stolen cars, like I was awoken at early hours of the morning to exploding cars, fearing for my life because somebody illegally installed a gas bottle there that could go off at any moment with a fire like that ..."[48]
   • (f) "The building is so dilapidated that it is inciting this type of antisocial behaviour. ... There's graffiti everywhere."[49]
   • (g) "I've got to put up with drunks outside the front of my house fighting. I've got to put up with bogans in my garage, like revving their engines ... and causing all manner of difficulties."[50]
   • (h) "Noise pollution ... from the increased traffic coming from the little Cook shops because the Little Oink has opened up as well as a café as well as now they're going to put in a tavern ... and in the meantime the builders are throwing blocks of cement out into skips ..."[51]
   • (i) Failure to maintain the aesthetic appearance of the property.[52]
   • (j) "It's set me back, my business back. It's not a pleasant place for me to invite either friends over to or business guests. ... it's turning into a ghetto. It's really terrible. Out the back it's all subsidised housing."[53]
   • (k) "It's been getting worse and worse and worse over the last three to four years I'd say and accelerated particularly since about 2014."[54]
   • (l) The agents have been trespassing on the property and harassing him.[55]
   • (m) The agents have sent around a trained killer to the property.[56] The trained killer was Robert Murphy who worked in the Elite US Marine Corp.[57]
   • (n) "...Sarah Fowler wants to walk into my house with her filthy, disgusting shoes that she's been wearing in putrid other rental properties...she tried to walk into my house with her shoes on."[58]
   • (o) The agents were not responsible property managers and this interfered with his quiet enjoyment of the property, and
   • (p) The agents have told him the Lessor is going to sell the property. They served him on 20 October 2017 with a notice to vacate on or before 18 December 2017. This is harassment and the lessor's action is retaliatory.
3. He told the Tribunal that the suburb of Cook had gone downhill. He said there was a dramatic increase in crime, litter and graffiti. He relied on a report entitled 'Canberra Crime Report' in Exhibit A1 purportedly authored by The Society for Better Society to support this claim.
4. The evidence about this report and its cost was troubling. The Tenant did not directly answer when asked if he himself had prepared or obtained this report. A business which had his own ABN had rendered an invoice for $24,750 incl. GST for this report to Mr Halcombe. He appeared to prevaricate when asked directly if this number was his ABN number, even when the Lessor had, in Exhibit R1, provided a copy of the ABN search showing the ABN was his ABN number.
5. The Tenant said he had not generated the invoice for $24,750. He alleged that it was payable by the Lessor notwithstanding he conceded in cross examination that the lessor had not requested him to prepare the report. He was evasive when asked who had generated the invoice. In cross examination he emphatically denied that the information in the crime report was available free online notwithstanding the crime report attributed its source as ACT Policing PROMIS and Autocite with the web address of https://www/policenews.act.gov.au/crime-statistics-and-data/crime-statistics.
6. The Tenant told the Tribunal that the crime report was necessary for him to justify his claim for a rent decrease which was the subject of previous tribunal proceedings. He also said that "it was needed to substantiate a lot of what I was saying about the unsavoury activities that were going on in the Cook area ..... it did cost me that amount of money."[59] However, he did not provide documentary evidence to the Tribunal to corroborate his claim that he had paid the invoice.
7. Ms Fowler told the Tribunal that the Lessor opposed the Tenant's claims for breach of quiet enjoyment and for payment of $24,750 incl. GST for the crime report. She said that the information in the crime report provided by the Tenant was available free of charge on the website https://www/policenews.act.gov.au/crime-statistics-and-data/crime-statistics. She also said that neither the Lessor nor the managing agents had asked the Tenant to prepare this report.
8. Most of the alleged breaches relied on by the Tenant in [91] above refer to matters for which the Lessor is not responsible. The Tribunal noted that many of the Tenant's complaints related to issues with the location of the property where he lived. The property was near the Cook shops. The Tenant complained of what appears to be unsavoury characters frequenting the neighbourhood. The Lessor cannot control what happens in public places.
9. The Tenant had previously raised some of these issues in [91] above with the agent in an email dated 8 August 2016 seeking a rent reduction. The rent was the subject of earlier tribunal hearings. The agent had offered the Tenant the opportunity in August 2016 to vacate the property. The Tenant did not accept the offer.
10. The Tribunal was concerned about the Tenant's unsatisfactory evidence in relation to the crime report. There was no evidence which could satisfy the Tribunal that the amount claimed as the cost of this report, $24,750.00 was genuine or reasonable. The Tenant did not produce evidence which could satisfy the Tribunal that he had paid $24,750.00 for this report. Having considered all of the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the report was necessary for the Tenant's application that the Lessor had breached his quiet enjoyment. His claim for the cost is this report is dismissed.
11. The Tribunal turns to the other matters raised by the Tenant as breaching his quiet enjoyment.
12. The Tribunal notes that the claim by the Tenant that fence palings are falling off was raised by the agent in the routine inspection report dated 14 August 2014 and identified as work to be carried out by the lessor. One of the photographs of the exterior of the property attached to that routine inspection report dated 1 September 2015 showed loose fence palings. The photographs provided by the Tenant (in Exhibit A1) showed loose fence palings, nails sticking out and graffiti on some palings. The difficulty for the Tribunal is that the Tenant said that he himself had repaired some of nails that were sticking out. The present state of the fence was not clear from the evidence. In these circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that these matters constitute a breach of the Tenant's quiet enjoyment.
13. The Tribunal has considered the evidence in relation to the Tenant's claims about the agents trespassing on the property, harassing him, trying to wear shoes inside the property, sending trained killers to the property and not being responsible property managers.
14. The Tribunal is satisfied that the agents attended the property at times when access had been pre-arranged or ordered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the order made by Presidential Member McCarthy on 30 August 2017 provided for two persons from LJ Hooker to attend the inspection on 14 September 2014. One of the two agents who attended the property on 14 September 2017 was LJ Hooker agent, Robert Murphy. The Tenant provided the Tribunal with a print out from the LJ Hooker website which profiled Robert Murphy and stated:

Born and raised in the US, Robert completed his formal education before beginning his working life in the elite US Marine Corp.

1. The Tenant, apparently, relied on the reference to 'elite US Marine Corp' in this profile to describe Robert Murphy as 'a trained killer'. The Tribunal noted Robert Murphy's statutory declaration in which he stated that he had been working with LJ Hooker Belconnen since 1999. This is also stated in the profile provided to the Tribunal by the Tenant. Having considered all of the evidence and submissions the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is any merit in this allegation by the Tenant. Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the Tenant's various allegations about the agents' behaviour have merit.
2. Having considered all of the evidence and submissions and for the above reasons the Tribunal dismisses the Tenant's claims that the Lessor has breached his quiet enjoyment and that the agents have breached his quiet enjoyment.
3. At the hearing, the Tenant did not pursue his claim that the agent's issuing the notice to vacate based on the seller selling the property was harassment or retaliatory. In these circumstances the Tribunal dismisses this claim.

1. The Tenant told the Tribunal that he operated his business For Seasons from the property. His business sold thermal hand warmers and he stored his stock in his locked caged area of the garage. He said the garage had flooded many times because the gutters are not cleaned out and the drains and sumps are blocked by debris. He said he had told the agents that his stock was damaged by the flooding. He said "I don't know how many times they need to be told about this but the garage floods."[60] He also said he had to throw out the damaged stock. He was claiming the value to him of the damaged stock of about $4,000.[61] He had rendered an invoice number 3359 from his business, For Seasons ABN 12 373 322 124, dated 15 May 2011 to the Lessor care of LJ Hooker Belconnen for $4,224 incl. GST.[62] This invoice was written up as if it were issued following an order as it states "Thanks for your order." The invoice was for 2,400 thermal hand warmers which he said he had lost because of the water damage to the garage where he stored them.
2. Ms Fowler told the Tribunal that the Tenant had stored the hand warmers in a mesh cage inside the garage and the garage was in the common area and managed by the body corporate. The Lessor, who had lived at the property before it was rented, said that the garage area was a communal garage. It provided numbered spaces for parking and every unit had their own cage. The body corporate was responsible for the maintenance of the drains, repairs and the garage, not the lessor.
3. During the hearing the Tenant did acknowledge that the cage in which he had stored the thermal warmers was in the common area of the property he was renting.[63] He also acknowledged that this issue should be pursued with the body corporate.
4. Having considered the evidence and the submissions the Tribunal is satisfied that the maintenance of the common property, which included the garage where the Tenant stored his goods, is the responsibility of the body corporate. The Lessor is not liable to the Tenant for the actions or inactions of the body corporate. For these reasons the Tribunal dismisses this claim.

1. For the reasons set out above the Tribunal assesses compensation payable by the Lessor to the Tenant for the breach of clause 55(1) of the standard residential tenancy terms for failing to repair the spa in the sum of $433.50. The compensation is to be paid within 28 days. The Tenant's other claims for compensation are dismissed.
2. Section 48 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACAT Act) provides:

(1) The parties to an application must bear their own costs unless this Act otherwise provides or the tribunal otherwise orders.

(a) if the tribunal decides an application in favour of the applicant, the tribunal may order the other party to pay the applicant--

(ii) any other fee incurred by the applicant that the tribunal considers necessary for the application; or

1. The Tenant was exempted from paying the filing fee so the Tribunal is unable to make an order for the filing fee pursuant to section 48(2)(a)(i) of the ACAT Act. The Tribunal has considered whether the fee the Tenant said he had incurred in obtaining the crime report could be recovered pursuant to section 48(2)(a)(ii) of the ACAT Act. For the reasons set out in [93], [94], [95] and [99] above the Tribunal will not make an order pursuant to section 48(2)(a)(ii) of the ACAT Act for the claimed cost of the crime report.

[2] [2016] ACAT 95 at [47]

[3] [2011] ACAT 9 at [8]

[4] Transcript of proceedings page 74, lines 7-8

[5] Transcript of proceedings page 23, line 34

[6] Transcript of proceedings page 26, line 17

[7] Transcript of proceedings page 26, lines 7-8

[8] Transcript of proceedings page 73, lines 27-28

[9] Transcript of proceedings page 76, lines 1-3

[10] Transcript of proceedings page 74, lines 6-7

[11] Transcript of proceedings page 17, lines26-27

[12] Transcript of proceedings page 191, lines 30-31

[13] Transcript of proceedings page 75, lines 24-25

[15] [2016] ACAT 95

[16] [2010] ACAT 60

[17] [2011] ACAT 9

[18] Transcript of proceedings page 65, lines 33-34

[19] Transcript of proceedings page 25, lines15-16

[20] Transcript of proceedings page 29, lines 33-34

[21] Transcript of proceedings page 96, lines 22-24

[22] Transcript of proceedings page 115, lines 29-32

[23] Transcript of proceedings page 119, lines 39-40

[24] Transcript of proceedings page 116, lines 39-44; Transcript of proceedings page 116, line 1

[26] Transcript of proceedings page 38, lines 28-44

[27] Transcript of proceedings page 39, lines 1-20

[28] Transcript of proceedings page 39, lines 42-43

[29] Transcript of proceedings page 40, line 2

[30] Transcript of proceedings page 40, lines 32-35

[31] Standard residential tenancy terms clause 57

[32] (2009) NSWCTTT 240

[33] (2010) NSWCTTT 407

[35] Transcript of proceedings page 44, lines 35-36

[36] Transcript of proceedings page 34, lines 35-37

[37] Transcript of proceedings page 34, lines 42-43

[38] Transcript of proceedings page 37, lines 38-40

[40] Transcript of proceedings page 190, lines 21-25

[41] [2007] SADC 64

[42] Transcript of proceedings page 47, line 39

[43] Transcript of proceedings page 25, line 44; Transcript of proceedings page 26, lines 1-8

[44] Transcript of proceedings page 41, lines 15-16

[45] Transcript of proceedings page 41, lines 25-26

[46] Transcript of proceedings page 41, lines 30-31

[47] Transcript of proceedings page 41, lines 35-36

[48] Transcript of proceedings page 41 lines 40-45, Transcript of proceedings page 42 line 1

[49] Transcript of proceedings page 42 lines 40-44; Transcript of proceedings page 43 lines 1-8

[50] Transcript of proceedings page 42 lines 12-14

[51] Transcript of proceedings page 42 lines 20-25

[52] Transcript of proceedings page 43 lines 16-17

[53] Transcript of proceedings page 43 lines 22-25

[54] Transcript of proceedings page 43 lines 36-37

[55] Transcript of proceedings page 52 lines 9-10

[56] Transcript of proceedings page 52 lines 42-43

[57] Transcript of proceedings page 54 lines 2-3

[58] Transcript of proceedings page 157 lines 1-2, lines 15-16

[59] Transcript of proceedings page 116, lines 33-35 and line 37

[60] Transcript of proceedings page 26, lines 11-12

[61] Transcript of proceedings page 26, line 17

[63] Transcript of proceedings page 141, line 12-13