1. Leave is given to the applicant to amend the application to include:

(a) payment of compensation from the respondent for:

(i) breach of the rental providers' duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure the renter has quiet enjoyment of the rented premises.

(ii) breach of the residential tenancy agreement.

(iii) the electricity charges paid by the renter during the tenancy where the premises were not separately metered.

(iv) distress and disappointment.

(v) aggravated or exemplary damages.

(b) orders that:

(i) the respondents are in contempt of the order made in this proceeding for non-urgent repairs.

(ii) the rental providers be listed on the rental non-compliance register.

1. The respondents are to pay the applicants $278.33.
2. All other claims are dismissed.

1. The parties entered into a 12-month fixed term residential tenancy agreement ('the tenancy agreement') that commenced 16 January 2021. The tenancy (by then a periodic tenancy) terminated when the renters (the applicants) vacated the premises on 23 November 2022.
2. The applicants now claim compensation of $25,990.00 (including $2,400.00 compensation for distress and disappointment plus aggravated or exemplary damages of $2,000.00) to be paid to them by the residential rental provider (the respondents) under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) ('the Act') arising from breaches of the respondents' duties under the Act, breaches of the terms of the tenancy agreement and the entire cost of electricity consumed at the premises during the period of the tenancy.
3. The applicants also seek orders that:
   • the respondents are in contempt of the order made in this proceeding for non-urgent repairs; and
   • the rental providers be listed on the rental non-compliance register.
4. The claim arises from an order made by the Tribunal in this proceeding on 6 December 2021 that the respondents were in breach of their duty under the Act to maintain the rented premises in good repair, and that the respondents were to carry out non-urgent repairs to the premises.
5. By way of subsequent orders, the applicants were given leave to apply for compensation arising from the breach of the respondents' duty to maintain rented premises in good repair.
6. This hearing was the hearing of the applicants' claim for compensation.

1. From the written and oral submissions of the parties, and the records of the Tribunal in a number of related proceedings,[1] the factual background to this tenancy and this proceeding is, in general terms, as follows:
   • The premises that are the subject of the tenancy agreement include a house that is situated on an area that is part of an 8ha lot described as 955 Graham Road, Ky Valley (or, alternatively, Kyabram) ('the lot').
   • The term was for 12-month fixed term that commenced 16 January 2021 with an end date of 16 January 2022 with the monthly rent being $1,386.66.
   • There was a written tenancy agreement (although not in the prescribed form).
   • Relevantly, the tenancy agreement acknowledged that:
     • The respondents would have access to the premises for checking and feeding cows and fixing fences 'as discussed with the tenants'.
     • The applicants have agreed and been notified about renovation works still being done by the owner and workers, while tenants living at these premises.
     • The applicants will be responsible for the breakdown of the fridge supplied by the landlords...
     • The troughs on the property[2] for livestock will use some electricity to fill the troughs up, which is very minimal, and tenants have been notified of this.
     • The bungalow, the external toilet, the pump shed and the shedding that are on the lot do not form part of the premises for the purposes of the tenancy agreement.
   • A hand drawn diagram (which is consistent with photographs and overhead images submitted at the hearing) shows the area of the lot that constitutes the premises for the purposes of the tenancy agreement ('the premises'). This includes the house and the driveway on the lot accessing Graham Road.
   • The lot forms part of a working farm owned by the respondents. The respondents reside in a separate dwelling on an adjoining lot. Put another way, the house that is the subject of the tenancy agreement is a 'second house' on a working farm.
   • The respondents have (by separate driveway to the Graham Road driveway that forms part of the premises) ready access to the shedding and the farmland on the lot for their farming operations. This separate access ultimately passes by the respondents' dwelling and connects to McEwan Drive.
   • The house forming part of the premises was occupied in the past by respondents but at the time of entering into the agreement was unoccupied.
   • Prior to entering into the tenancy agreement, the applicants were for some time residing in a local caravan park with their small child. This was during the Covid pandemic.
   • The applicants were at the time employed by Mr Pulsoni's brother on his fruit block.
   • The applicants sought alternative accommodation. By means of introduction (on the respondents' submissions, this was whilst the applicants were working in the fruit packing shed on the farm) the applicants sought to rent the unoccupied house from the respondents and the respondents agreed.
   • At the time of entering into the agreement there was no agent involved. In June 2021 (according to the respondents, due to the deteriorating relationship between the parties) the respondents appointed a real estate agent to manage the premises.[3]
   • The fixed term came to an end on 16 January 2022.
   • After several applications to the Tribunal by the respondents for orders terminating the tenancy and gaining possession of the premises, the applicants ultimately vacated the premises on 23 November 2022.
2. The order made on 6 December 2021 required the respondents to do the following:
   • Supply the renter and the Tribunal with a copy of the approval by the local Council for the works carried out to the septic system and sewer.
   • Carry out the following repairs by the dates specified:
     • All items referred to in the electrical report. The rewiring of the house, the earthing of the house and the installation of proper smoke alarms are to be carried out on or before 10 December 2021. The balance of items including the replacement of the hot water system is to be carried out by 24 December 2021.
     • Have a pest inspector attend to inspect the roof cavity to determine if there are any vermin residing in the property and carry out any repairs or pest treatment as recommended.
     • Connect all stormwater pipes from the main house to the tank, unless the rental provider can establish that this is against the recommendations of Council in relation to the diversion of these pipes.
     • Have an independent tradesperson attend and inspect the windows and flyscreen to determine if there is any issue with the use of the windows or the state of the flyscreens and carry out any necessary repairs as required.
3. By order dated 10 January 2022 the time frame for the respondents to comply with the order was extended to 31 January 2022.
4. The order dated 6 December 2021 gave leave to the applicants to renew the proceeding if they sought to claim compensation arising from the respondents' breach of duty to maintain premises.
5. Over following months, several orders were made giving the applicants further opportunity to clarify whether they were seeking compensation and if so, requiring them to set out the amount or amounts claimed and the basis of their claims.
6. Submissions and emails to the Tribunal from the applicants and to/from the respondents followed, to the extent that when a remote hearing of the application for compensation was held on 19 July 2024 it was not clear to me what compensation the applicants were claiming and the evidence to be relied on.[4]
7. Following directions and orders made on 19 July 2024, the applicants filed with the Tribunal and sent to the respondents written submissions dated 31 January 2025 setting out their claims and providing supporting evidence.
8. The respondents made written submissions in reply dated 24 February 2025 which were also filed with the Tribunal and sent to the applicants prior to the hearing.
9. Both the applicants and the respondents made oral submissions at the hearing, which was held over a full day at Shepparton Law Courts. The oral submissions provided some clarity and context to the written submissions and were generally consistent with the written submissions.

Scope and background to the applicants' claims

1. The applicants take something of a 'scattergun' approach in their oral and written submissions, setting out what at times essentially amounts to their grievances regarding the respondents, the premises, tradespersons who attended the premises, the real estate agents, and the tenancy in general.
2. However, in terms of the Act, the submissions can be distilled into the seeking of the payment of compensation in relation to four categories of alleged breaches by the respondents of requirements of the Act or the tenancy agreement:
   • Breach of the rental providers' duty to maintain the rented premises in good repair.
   • Breach of the rental providers' duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure the renter has quiet enjoyment of the rented premises.
   • Breach of the tenancy agreement.
   • Failure to have the premises separately metered for electricity.
3. These claims are significantly broader than a claim for compensation related to the non-urgent repairs, which is the subject of the original application and for which the applicants have been given leave to apply for compensation.
4. The respondents have made submissions in reply to each of these claims, without raising any objection to their broadened nature.
5. In the interests of bringing closure to this dispute and reflecting the apparent intent of the parties, I give leave to the applicants to amend their claim to include the additional claims for compensation.
6. The applicants' final submissions[5] setting out their claims were submitted on 31 January 2025.

1. All the applicants' written and oral submissions were considered. However, it is not necessary to detail here every submission made.
2. The applicants' submissions, so far as they are consistent with the respondents' submissions and go primarily to background or context, are set out above.
3. The applicants' claims for compensation are set out in a table submitted by the applicants, which is replicated as follows:

Entering the premises without notice once or twice a week between 1/2/21 and 11/2/22

Tradesperson turned off power - food spoilage and fridge not working

1. The respondents' written submissions in reply run to 148 pages.
2. All the respondents' written and oral submissions were considered. However, it is not necessary to detail here every submission made.
3. The respondents' submissions, so far as they are consistent with the applicants' submissions and go primarily to background or context, are set out above.
4. The respondents' responses to the applicants' claims for compensation are summarised as follows:
   • The respondents did not attend the premises on a near daily basis, and there is no evidence provided. The applicants refer to the respondents attending to livestock and other farm activities on the lot - but these are areas that are not part of the premises. Any attendances at the premises by the respondents were for the purpose of repairs, attending to issues raised by the applicants, or otherwise by agreement of the applicants.
   • The respondents did not block access to the driveway, or any area forming part of the premises. The respondents did not block water delivery. The applicants at all times had access to the premises, via the driveway to Graham Road. The applicants confuse the area on the lot that does not form part of the premises, and the respondents' adjoining property, with the area forming the premises.
   • There was always tank water available to the house. Water can be supplied to the house wholly from the rainwater tanks or wholly from the channel. The applicants made changes (without approval) so that tank water could be supplied to the kitchen (via a hose inserted through the kitchen window) with the rest of the house being supplied from the channel. At all times tank water was available to the entire house by simply turning a valve.
   • There was an adequate hot water service, and the applicants chose (in fact, made physical changes to the way water was delivered to the house, without approval) to have channel water supplied to the hot water service. Ultimately, they agreed[6] to install a new hot water service following renter complaints.
   • The old hot water service remained in place, in a cupboard, as the applicants refused permission for entry to remove it.
   • The septic tanks (one of which is attached to the bungalow and therefore not part of the premises) worked properly. The tanks were pumped out at the applicants' request, to address their concerns. No issues with the septic tanks were identified by any plumber who attended. The local council inspected and had no concerns (as evidenced by an email dated 31 January 2022). A lid to one septic tank was broken at one stage - but this was broken by the applicants, and the applicants paid for the repairs.
   • Stormwater did not run into the septic tanks but was directed from the house by way of drains, into the paddocks. A pipe forming part of the stormwater/grey water drain did block at one stage (that the respondents are aware of), causing the yard to flood. This is a relatively simple open drain that goes through a pipe and out into the paddocks. There was a foreign object in the pipe, which the renters were shown how to clear with a garden hose.
   • The toilet did not block constantly and there is no evidence to support this claim.
   • Three windows were replaced - these were the same three windows about which the renter complained. Flywire was repaired where needed. An invoice is provided.
   • It was acknowledged in the agreement that the house was in the process of being reclad. There was no time frame - in the agreement or verbally - for the recladding. At all times the house was clad with weatherboard, the recladding with vinyl cladding - over the top of the weatherboards - was essentially for cosmetic purposes. Delays were experienced due to Covid (which resulted in supply issues and a lack of available tradespersons) and by difficulties obtaining access to the premises.
   • The respondents were organising to have wild bees removed when Mr Harris took it upon himself to move them onto the respondents' land.
   • There were no possums or rats in the roof and there is no evidence to support this claim. The pest inspector attended on 14 January 2022, in accordance with the Tribunal's order, and in the words shown on the invoice, placed baits as a precautionary measure.
   • The farm fences do not form part of the premises. In any event, they were not in disrepair and there is no evidence to support this claim. Cows did get into the garden of the premises once and were promptly removed. Cows grazed in paddocks on the lot that were not part of the premises.
   • Regarding the electrical repairs, the respondents submit an email from an electrician, Mr Edwards. Mr Edwards states in his email (and a copy is submitted) that:
     • He attended the premises on August 13, 2021.[7]
     • Defects were identified and it was agreed to proceed with the necessary repairs.
     • He could not return until December 2021, at which time the lighting circuits were rewired and light fittings, ceiling fan, exhaust fan and some switches were replaced. Some unearthed power circuits were rewired.
     • After a Christmas break, he returned in February, and the installation of circuit breakers was completed.
     • This brought the premises to compliance with current regulations.
     • Illegal electrical work had recently been carried out and that Mr Harris acknowledged he had arranged for this work to be done by an unknown person passing through the area.
     • Due to the 'toxic' environment (in context, meaning the relationship between the parties) - coupled with Mr Harris making his access difficult - he did not return to complete the upgrade of a couple of power points in the old laundry.
   • As evidenced by an invoice, all downpipes were connected to tanks by 21 January 2021 (sic - context is that this was 2022) and a new hot water service (which was already ordered) was installed by 8 January 2022.
   • The tenancy agreement did not give the applicants access to the outside toilet or the sheds, which are not part of the premises.
5. The respondents submit they did not remove the fridge that was supplied to the applicants as part of the agreement. The respondents became aware it was no longer being used by the applicants and asked if the applicants would prefer to remove it/have it removed from the premises. The applicants delivered the fridge back to the respondents' premises.
6. The premises are separately metered for electricity. The agreement acknowledged that the electric pump - which delivers channel water to the premises for use in the garden and, if selected, to the house - also supplies water to troughs on the lot, and a discount of $10 per week was factored into the rental amount as compensation.
7. The respondents submit that all repairs ordered by the Tribunal were completed and submit the relevant invoices.
8. The respondents submit further information which they consider provides further context to the applicants' claims.
9. The respondents submit that the applicants regularly entered the respondents' land, including by parking vehicles in the packing sheds (which restricted the respondents' ability to use the packing sheds for farm activities), using the respondents' driveway rather than the Graham Road driveway, and burned rubbish in the respondents' paddocks adjoining the premises.
10. Further, the applicants regularly refused or hindered access to the respondents and tradespeople to carry out repairs or maintenance and refused access to the real estate agent for inspections.
11. The respondents submit the applicants' behaviour was such that the real estate agent resigned, citing concerns over wellbeing of staff. A copy of correspondence to this effect from the real estate agent, dated 21 June 2022, is submitted.
12. The respondents submit that they offered to allow applicants to break their fixed term agreement without penalty.
13. The respondents further submit that, on the day of the final inspection of the premises, the first applicant, Mr Harris, removed the fitting that he had installed to the water tank (without approval) which allowed some 20,000 litres of tank water to spill under the house. A copy of an insurance report is submitted, showing the recommendation is to allow six months for the underneath of the house to dry out and then assess for structural damage.[8]
14. The respondents submit the applicants' behaviour has cost them in excess of $35,000.00.

1. The respondents, and Mr Harris, appeared at the hearing and gave oral evidence.
2. The respondents presented their oral submissions and responses to the Member's questions in a clear and persuasive manner, generally free of vitriol[9] or apparent guile.
3. The respondents' submissions were, in general, confined to facts, although they did at times (understandably) respond to some rather provocative personal claims made about them by the applicants in written submissions.
4. Mr Harris' oral submissions at the hearing were at times selective and somewhat evasive, with a tendency to omit critical information.[10]
5. The applicants' written submissions, and Mr Harris' oral submissions at the hearing, were at times hyperbolic.
6. Accordingly, where there is conflict in the evidence given by the parties and where there is no independent evidence, I generally prefer the evidence of the respondents over the evidence given by the applicants/Mr Harris.

1. The applicants provide no evidence to support the claim that the respondents 'accessed the premises without notice once or twice a week between 1/2/21 and 11/2/22'.
2. The respondents dispute the claim and submit that any attendance at the premises was for maintenance or repair as either set out in the written agreement or by consent of the renters. The respondents submit that, after the relationship between the parties deteriorated and a real estate agent was appointed, all access was arranged formally and in accordance with the Act. I accept these submissions.
3. The respondents submit that the applicants considered the attendance by the respondents to farm duties on areas not forming part of the premises, was taken by the applicants to be attendance at the premises. I find this to be consistent with the applicants' submissions, which indicate that during the period of the agreement, they - at least at times - had little regard to the limits, or boundaries, of the premises, treating the entire lot as if it were part of the premises. I accept the respondents' submissions.
4. Accordingly, I find, on balance of probabilities, that the respondents did not breach the applicants right to quiet enjoyment of the premises by attending the premises as claimed by the applicants. This claim is dismissed.
5. The driveway to the premises is the Graham Road driveway. The evidence of the parties is consistent that the access that was 'blocked' - that is, had access by the applicants restricted by farming activities on the respondents' farm - was not part of the premises. This claim is dismissed.
6. The applicants claim there was no tank water to the house. I do not find this to be the case. I find the house is set up so that the whole house can be connected to tank water or - by way of moving a valve - connected to channel water. I find the applicants made physical changes (without consent) to the way water was delivered to the house to the effect that tank water was delivered to the kitchen by way of a hose coming through the window. This claim is dismissed.
7. The applicants claim the hot water service did not work. I find, on the evidence submitted, that the 'old' hot water service functioned, but not adequately. I accept the respondents' submissions that they were arranging replacement of the hot water service which they did.
8. However, the Tribunal has found that - in relation to the hot water service - the respondents were in breach of their duty to maintain the premises and ordered a new hot water service be installed. I allow the applicants' claim for compensation of $209.03.
9. It is not disputed the old hot water service was left in the (what appears to be purpose built) cupboard in the laundry. I do not find this to constitute a breach of the respondents' duty to maintain the premises. I also accept the respondents' submission that the applicants refused access to the respondent for the purpose of removing the old hot water service. I dismiss this claim.
10. The evidence given by the applicants in their written submissions regarding the septic tanks was selective, and somewhat unclear as a result. The written submissions appear to conflate issues with the septic tanks with blocked drainage (draining 'grey' water from the premises) and accumulation of storm water in the yard following rain (again, relating to a blocked drain, draining storm water runoff into the paddock).
11. Some time at the hearing was devoted to clarifying the situation.
12. I find there are two septic tanks. Only one forms part of the premises. Mr Harris agrees that he damaged a lid to one of the septic tanks (which one is not clear) and replaced it at his own cost. There is no other evidence of septic tank lids being broken.
13. There is no independent evidence of the septic tanks overflowing.
14. The respondents submit plumbing invoices regarding inspection of the septic tanks, and also invoices showing the septic tanks having been emptied. The respondents submit correspondence from the Council to the effect that there were no concerns regarding the operation of the septic tanks. I dismiss this claim.
15. There is no independent evidence the toilet blocked weekly and the respondents dispute this claim. I dismiss this claim.
16. Mr Harris, at the hearing, submits that the three windows that were replaced by the respondents were not the windows that did not open/close easily. I am not persuaded by this submission. The respondents submit the windows that were replaced were the windows that did not open/close easily. It is inherently unlikely that the respondents would replace three windows that were not the three windows that needed to be replaced.
17. The respondents submit invoices showing replacement of windows and flywire.
18. The Tribunal found that the respondents were in breach of their duty to maintain premises and the windows and flywire formed part of this finding.
19. I allow the applicants' claim of $69.30.
20. In relation to the cladding, I find the agreement acknowledged the cladding would be carried out during the tenancy. No time frame was stated. The applicants state there was a verbal agreement and the respondents deny this. I prefer the evidence of the respondents.
21. The applicants, in their submissions, invite a conclusion that there was no cladding on the house. I find the house was clad in weatherboard and the respondents were in the process of installing vinyl cladding over the top of the weatherboards.
22. I find no breach of duty to maintain premises arising from the installation of additional cladding on the house. I dismiss this claim.
23. The applicants seek compensation due to a claim that a tradesperson temporarily turned off the electricity to the premises, leading to the fridge not working and food spoiling. Apart from there being no evidence to support this claim (other than a denial of an insurance claim made by the applicants), I find no breach of any duty on the part of the respondents even if the claimed actions - and loss - could be established. I dismiss this claim.
24. The first applicant, Mr Harris, claims compensation from the respondents arising from his own actions in attempting to move a wild beehive from the premises onto the respondents' land. Even if a breach of duty on the part of the respondents could be established, the direct cause of the claimed loss (for which there is no evidence) is Mr Harris' own actions. It is self-evidently unwise for an untrained person - wearing no protective clothing - to attempt to move a wild beehive and the damage Mr Harris claims as a result was an entirely predictable outcome from his own actions. I dismiss this claim.
25. Requiring an inspection of the roof to determine if there were vermin present formed part of the orders dated 6 December 2021.
26. However, there is no independent evidence submitted that establishes that there were possums or rats in the roof. The respondents submit an invoice for an attendance of a pest inspector, who states on the invoice the baits were installed 'as a precaution'. I find no loss on the part of the applicants in relation to this claim and dismiss the claim.
27. There is no evidence to support the claim that fences of the premises were broken, allowing cows to enter. The respondents submit that one once occasion, cows entered the premises via a fence on the farm (that is, a fence on land not forming part of the premises). I find no breach of duties under the Act on the part of the respondents in relation to fences that did not form part of the premises. I dismiss this claim.
28. The applicants claim compensation under the general heading of 'electrical problems'. This claim appears to relate to the carrying out of electrical repairs.
29. I am satisfied that the respondents engaged an electrician to, essentially, upgrade the wiring etc to meet current standards. I am satisfied this work was already in progress when the order dated 6 December 2021 was made. I am satisfied that the work was not unreasonably delayed by the respondents - given the rural setting, the Covid pandemic and the approaching Christmas period combined to make it somewhat difficult to engage an electrician at short notice. I have no evidence of any actual loss on the part of the applicants, such as would attract compensation.
30. Further, Mr Harris does not dispute that some of the electrical work required was to address unlawful electrical work Mr Harris had himself either carried out or commissioned, without consent.
31. I dismiss this claim.
32. The applicants claim compensation under the general heading of 'power line problems'. This appears to be related to the carrying out maintenance work on the power lines by the line owner. The power lines are not the property of the respondents, and maintenance of power lines is the responsibility of the owner of those lines. I find no breach of duties under the Act on the part of the respondents in this scenario. I dismiss this claim.
33. The applicants claim there was a verbal agreement - forming part of the tenancy agreement - that they would have access to the outside toilet (which is on land not forming part of the tenancy agreement) and this access was removed. The respondents deny there was such a verbal agreement forming part of the tenancy agreement. In the absence of any independent evidence that the written tenancy agreement (which explicitly excludes the outside toilet) was amended by subsequent verbal agreement to include the outside toilet, I find the outside toilet does not form part of the premises. I dismiss this claim.
34. The applicants claim the respondents breached the tenancy agreement by removing a fridge. The respondents submit that the applicants were not using the fridge and the respondents simply inquired of the applicants if they would prefer it be removed/remove it. The evidence of the parties is consistent that the applicants delivered the fridge to the respondents' premises.
35. I find, on balance of probabilities, that the applicants voluntarily returned the fridge to the respondents. I find the applicants consented to the return of the fridge. I dismiss this claim.
36. The applicants claim the premises were not separately metered for electricity and as a result they were not liable to pay the charges for the supply or use of electricity in respect of their occupation in the premises. The applicants rely on s52 of the Act for this proposition.
37. The applicants claim that as a result they are entitled to compensation equating to the entire cost of the electricity consumed by them during tenancy.
38. It is not in dispute that there is an electric water pump connected to the electricity supply to the premises that is physically located on a part of the lot not forming part of the premises. This pump supplies channel water to the premises, for use in the house (if the valve is positioned in such a way as to do so) and in the garden. As acknowledged in the rental agreement, this pump also delivers water to a trough located on the lot for use by stock.
39. The applicants claim this arrangement means the premises are not 'separately metered'. I do not find this to be the case. I find there is only one premises connected to the electricity supply - and that is the premises that are the subject of the agreement. The electricity account was in the name of the renters. I do not find that the factual scenario where part of product of the use of the electricity (in this case, the pumping of water from the channel) may be consumed other than on or in the premises, means the premises are not separately metered.
40. Even if I am wrong about this, I find the applicants were fully aware of the arrangement, it being specifically agreed to in the rental agreement.
41. The applicants took no steps to alter or address the situation and thus failed to mitigate any potential 'loss' - even if a loss could be established.
42. Any award of compensation such as sought by the applicants would equate to a windfall gain to the applicants rather than compensation for any actual loss. I dismiss this claim.
43. The applicants have not established any conduct on the part of the respondents that entitle them to any award of damages. I dismiss these claims.
44. I find the respondents complied with the Tribunal's order for non-urgent repairs.
45. I find under all of the circumstances it would not be appropriate to list the respondents on the rental non-compliance register.
46. I note the respondents submit the applicants have, by way of breach of their duties under the Act or the rental agreement, cost them in excess of $35,000.00. The respondents have made no application to the Tribunal for an order for compensation, and this is not therefore a matter before me. As an observation, the respondents may, if they choose, make such an application, which would be a separate proceeding.

[1] Accessed by me in accordance with s 98 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic).

[2] Given context, I take reference to "the property" to mean the lot, not the area of the lot forming part of the premises.

[3] The agent resigned in June 2022, citing concerns for the wellbeing of staff due to the behaviour of the renters.

[4] What was clear was that the hearing was not suited to telephone or zoom hearing and that a full day would be required for the hearing. An interpreter attended this hearing at Mrs Harris' request, but Mrs Harris did not attend. Mr Harris stated that an interpreter was not required for Mrs Harris, and neither Mrs Harris nor an interpreter attended the final in-person hearing.

[5] Which, in their final written form, run to 225 pages.

[6] By implication, prior to the order for non-urgent repairs being made by the Tribunal.

[7] This is prior to the order by the Tribunal for repairs.

[8] This was put to Mr Harris at the hearing, to which he responded, 'not my problem'.

[9] Noting Ms Dolcetta was reminded at one point in the hearing not to audibly respond the applicant's oral evidence.

[10] For example, the photograph of a hose coming through the window to provide water to the kitchen appears concerning, until it becomes apparent that the applicant made these modifications to the premises (without consent). The claims of 'blocking the driveway' seem of concern until it becomes apparent that it was the driveway to the adjoining property that was 'blocked' (by farming activities) - not the driveway forming part of the premises.