1. The residential rental provider gave the renter notice to vacate under section 91ZJ of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997.

1. The residential rental provider has proven the reasons for giving the notice to vacate concerning endangering safety of occupiers of neighbouring premises.

1. No notice to leave under section 368 has been given in respect of the act or omission that caused endangerment to the safety of others.

1. Having regard to the matters in section 330A of the Act, it is reasonable and proportionate to make a possession order.

1. Having taken into account the matters set out in section 333(1B) of the Act and having regard to any guidelines of the Director as required under section 330(3), the residential rental provider is entitled to a possession order in the terms set out below.

1. The renter must vacate the rented premises by 11 August 2024.

1. At the request of the person who obtained the possession order and on payment of the prescribed fee the principal registrar of VCAT must issue a warrant of possession to be executed within 30 days after the date of issue. This request may be made after 11 August 2024 and no later than 11 January 2025.

Warning to renter: If you fail to vacate the rented premises by 11 August 2024 the residential rental provider can request the principal registrar to issue a warrant of possession. You may then be forcibly vacated from the rented premises by a police officer or an authorised person carrying out a warrant of possession.

Sophie Baring, Olivia Dalton, solicitors with Maddocks Lawyers

1. Mr Gregorio Galasso resides in a unit located within a 12 storey high-rise that provides accommodation for public housing renters aged over 55 years. The building contains 135 units. The renter has lived in his unit for 15 years. His son, Vince Galasso ('Vince'), acts as his carer. There are allegations that Vince lives with Mr Galasso without the permission of Homes Victoria. However, in interviews with Homes Victoria, Vince stated that he lived elsewhere but attended Mr Galasso's unit daily to provide care.
2. Homes Victoria gave Mr Galasso a notice to vacate dated 22 April 2024 under section 91ZJ of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) ('the Act') on the ground that he, or his visitor, was endangering the safety of occupiers of neighbouring premises. The notice to vacate was given by registered post with a termination date of 2 May 2024.
3. On 6 May 2024, Homes Victoria applied to VCAT for a possession order. The matter came before me for hearing on 12 June 2024. At the conclusion of the hearing, Homes Victoria was granted leave to file a further document, I requested a typed version of a handwritten statement from Vince and both parties were granted time to file any further response.[1] In addition, Homes Victoria requested written reasons for decision and thus the decision was reserved.

THE NOTICE TO VACATE GIVEN UNDER SECTION 91ZJ

1. The notice to vacate given to the renter under section 91ZJ stated:

You, Mr Gregorio (sic) and/or your visitors by act or omission are endangering the safety of the occupiers of neighbouring premises in breach of your obligations under the residential rental agreement and section 91ZJ of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997.

The incidents referred to below are endangering the physical and/or mental health of the occupiers of neighbouring premises.

1. On 13 April 2024, your visitor, Mr Vincent Gregorio, assaulted your neighbour, Mr Christopher Ibrahim, by hitting him in the throat and attempting to choke him. Victoria Police attended [and] are currently investigating this incident. A Personal Safety Intervention Order has been made in relation to Vincent Gregorio.
2. On 13 April 2024, your visitor, Mr Vincent Gregorio, assaulted your neighbour, Mr Simon Peters, by punching him in the chest and pushing him to the ground, causing injury to him.
3. On 23 October 2023, you assaulted your former neighbour, Mr Rick Savickas, by stabbing him in the shoulder. Following this incident, you were charged by Victoria Police for the following offences:
   1. recklessly causing injury and angst (sic);
   2. assault with a weapon without excuse; and
   3. use of controlled weapon without excuse.

Homes Victoria is satisfied that you and your visitor, Vincent Gregorio, are endangering the safety of occupiers of neighbouring premises in breach of section 91ZJ of the Act. Therefore, as the residential rental provider, Homes Victoria is providing you, Mr Gregorio Galasso with this immediate notice to vacate.

1. In any possession application, the Tribunal must consider a range of matters.
2. Firstly, whether the notice to vacate has been given or served on the renter in accordance with section 506(3) of the Act. In the present case, the notice to vacate was served by registered post and the manner of service was not in dispute.
3. Secondly, whether the residential rental provider has served the application for possession on the renter, in accordance with section 72 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic). In the present case, the application was served by registered post and the manner and timing of service was not in dispute.
4. Thirdly, whether the notice to vacate is valid and in accordance with section 91ZZO of the Act. In the present case, the notice to vacate was in the prescribed form, addressed to the renter, signed by the rental provider, and it specified both the reasons for giving the notice and a termination date, being a date on or after the notice was given to the renter. The validity of the notice was not in dispute. It was noted that in setting out the reasons for giving the notice, Homes Victoria has inadvertently used the surname "Gregorio" instead of "Galasso". I do not consider this error invalidated the notice in any way. It would have been clear to Mr Galasso that the details in the notice referred to himself and his son.
5. Fourthly, whether the residential rental provider was entitled to give the notice, that is, that the grounds specified in the notice have been proved. This notice was issued under section 91ZJ of the Act, which provides that a residential rental provider can give a renter a notice to vacate rented premises if the renter or the renter's visitor by act or omission endangers the safety of occupiers of neighbouring premises.
6. Fifthly, if the grounds are proved, I must consider whether it is reasonable and proportionate to make a possession order, taking into account the interests of the parties and other residents and the impact of a possession order on them, as well as the factors in section 330A of the Act.[2] A relevant factor in a case involving Homes Victoria, includes a Community Impact Statement provided under section 322A.[3] In addition, if dealing with an application for possession based on a notice to vacate given for danger, I may consider whether it is reasonable and proportionate to make a compliance order instead of a possession order.[4]
7. Lastly, if a possession order is to be made, I may take into account whether the resident has any special requirements to access relevant social supports or alternative accommodation in determining the day on which the renter will be required to vacate.[5]

1. As a preliminary matter, I note that the material filed indicates there is longstanding discord between Mr Galasso and his son Vince on the one hand, and four other residents on the other, namely Mr Darren Ryan, Mr Rick Savickas, Mr Simon Peters and Ms Vesna Sentic, each of whom were witnesses for Homes Victoria.
2. Homes Victoria filed evidence of resident complaints made by Mr Galasso or Vince against Mr Rick Savickas on 8 June 2023 and 24 October 2023 and against Mr Simon Peters on 30 April 2024. Mr Simon Peters lodged complaints against Mr Galasso or Vince on 21 January 2022, 20 March 2023, 26 April 2023 and 11 December 2023. Ms Vesna Sentic lodged complaints against Mr Galasso or Vince on 10 July 2023, 28 December 2023, 5 January 2024 and 1 May 2024.
3. Further, a number of Personal Safety Intervention Orders are, or have been, in effect between various residents, as follows:
   • On 29 August 2022, an intervention order ('IVO') was made against Mr Darren Ryan, protecting Mr Galasso. The application for the IVO stated that the renter was in his flat when he heard arguing outside between Vince and Mr Ryan. He went out to calm things down. Mr Ryan then struck his son and as Mr Galasso went to stop him, the renter was also struck. As Mr Galasso went down, Mr Ryan stomped on his hand. Vince and Mr Galasso then hit Mr Ryan in self-defence. Mr Ryan then made threats to kill.
   • In February 2023, an IVO was made against Vince, protecting Mr Simon Peters.
   • On 20 June 2023, an IVO was made against Mr Rick Savickas protecting Mr Galasso, after the renter was allegedly assaulted by Mr Savickas (photographs were provided of Mr Galasso with a black eye). The application for an IVO stated that Mr Savickas struck Mr Galasso in the back of the head and then again as Mr Galasso turned, causing Mr Galasso to fall. Mr Savickas then kicked him in the ribs. Police attended and noted injuries to the head and hand.
   • On 29 January 2024, an interim IVO was made against Ms Vesna Sentic, protecting Vince. On 29 April 2024, Vince reported a breach of the IVO to police, namely a threat to kill.
   • On 23 February 2024, an IVO was made against Mr Simon Peters, protecting Vince.
   • On 13 May 2024, an interim IVO was made against Ms Vesna Sentic, protecting Mr Galasso. The application for a final order stated that Ms Sentic had made threats to kill or harm Mr Galasso and his son.
   • On 17 April 2024, an interim IVO was made against Vince, protecting Mr Simon Peters. An application for a further IVO hearing scheduled for 25 June 2024 stated that there had been ongoing issues between the parties for 12 months with a previous IVO expiring and a current IVO with the roles reversed.
   • Ms Vesna Sentic gave evidence that an IVO was made in 2024 against Mr Galasso and Vince protecting Ms Sentic.
   • Mr Richard Savickas gave somewhat contradictory evidence stating at one point that he believed police had taken out an IVO on his behalf, and at another that he intended to do so.
4. In submissions filed on behalf of Mr Galasso, it was stated that since mid-2023, Mr Galasso and Vince had been subjected to violence and aggression by the four other residents, Mr Ryan, Mr Savickas, Mr Peters and Ms Sentic. The incidents set out in the notice to vacate should be seen in that context, and the failure of Homes Victoria to respond to Mr Galasso's concerns.
5. Homes Victoria submitted that Mr Galasso and his son were attempting to rely on the IVOs to establish a narrative that they are acting in self-defence when they assault other residents, but this is not the case.

ARE THE MATTERS SET OUT IN THE NOTICE TO VACATE PROVED?

1. I turn now to consider whether Homes Victoria was entitled to give the notice to vacate on the grounds of endangerment, in particular whether the evidence presented proved the matters specified in the notice.

"On 23 October 2023, you assaulted your former neighbour, Mr Rick Savickas, by stabbing him in the shoulder."[6]

1. Mr Richard Savickas was formerly a resident on Level 8 of the high rise, although he has now vacated.
2. He provided a written statement to Victoria Police on 25 October 2023, in which he stated that he was in the lift on the way down to the lobby when another male entered the lift at Level 5 by the name of Ivan. An elderly female resident entered the lift at Level 2. When the lift reached the ground floor, the female got out of the lift first. After this, Ivan mumbled something to Mr Savickas, but Mr Savickas could not understand what he said. Mr Savickas turned to him and said "what?". Ivan then grabbed Mr Savickas by the shirt at his neck. Ivan was yelling, apparently in a different language. Mr Savickas tried to push Ivan off in order to protect himself.
3. As he did so, Mr Savickas felt a push from the back and then something puncture his skin. He turned around and heard Vince yelling at him. Behind him was Mr Galasso, who had a knife that he was swinging, trying to cut Mr Savickas further. The knife was getting closer and closer, so Mr Savickas put his hands up in order to try to block the knife. Mr Darren Ryan then got between Mr Galasso and Mr Savickas, and Mr Savickas managed to get away from the lift area. Mr Galasso and Vince however kept trying to come towards him, with Mr Ryan stopping them.
4. In a further statutory declaration dated 14 December 2023, Mr Savickas said that the stabbing incident occurred in the context of an ongoing dispute that he had with Mr Galasso. At the start of 2023, Mr Galasso made a statement to Victoria Police that Mr Savickas had assaulted him. Mr Savickas denied the assault and he was never charged in relation to this allegation. However, Mr Galasso took out an intervention order against Mr Savickas, who consented to the intervention order because he thought it would be an easier way to get Mr Galasso to stay away.
5. Mr Savickas went on to state that after he had made a police statement in relation to the stabbing in October 2023, Mr Galasso and Vince were out the front of the station and made threats to kill. Mr Savickas endeavoured to report this to police, but no statement was taken.
6. Mr Savickas further said that he was taken by ambulance to Royal Melbourne Hospital where he was attended to for a stab wound requiring stitches.
7. A similar written statement dated 31 May 2024 also indicated that Mr Savickas had relocated for his safety and the safety of his dog. He said that when he visited friends in the high rise, Vince approached and threatened him. The attack had an ongoing effect on his mental health. He was in the process of obtaining a Personal Safety Intervention Order against Mr Galasso.
8. Mr Savickas gave sworn evidence by telephone. He said that following the stabbing, police told him that they had put an IVO against Mr Galasso on his behalf.
9. Mr Savickas agreed that he was subject to an IVO protecting Mr Galasso and said that he was in fact charged with an assault against Mr Galasso in June 2023. However, he said that the charges were withdrawn last week at court, and he expected the IVO to be revoked as well.
10. He confirmed he had not lived at the high rise since December 2023. He said he had been back to visit friends in the high rise but had been harassed and threatened by Vince and Mr Galasso. The last time Vince followed and abused Mr Savickas and told him he was going to die. On another occasion, he had seen Vince up the street. Vince then told police Mr Savickas was stalking him.

1. Mr Darren Ryan is also a resident in the high rise. He provided a written statement to police dated 23 October 2023 in which he stated that he was downstairs collecting meat when he heard a commotion at the lifts. He saw Mr Savickas and another resident having a verbal argument. Vince entered the lift and grabbed Mr Savickas. Vince said something like "Oh you, you arsehole". Vince entered the lift and started manhandling Mr Savickas and turned him so that his back was to Mr Galasso.
2. Mr Galasso leant over and had a knife or garden shovel type thing and he stabbed Mr Savickas in the shoulder. Mr Galasso stabbed at Mr Savickas several times. Mr Savickas came out of the lift. Mr Ryan jumped in between the lot of them. Vince was yelling "get your friend out of here, we don't want him in here". Mr Ryan could see that Vince was wearing a pair of gold coloured knuckle chucks (sic) on his forefingers. Vince was yelling "You're fxxcked and I've got your photo".
3. Mr Savickas and Mr Ryan then went to the carpark. As Vince walked out Mr Ryan could see that Vince still had his knuckle chucks on and his hand clenched in a fist. Mr Savickas then called 000.
4. Mr Ryan further stated that he re-entered the building and saw Mr Galasso come back downstairs. He might have had a bigger knife or something down his pants. He had his hands near his waistline, and it looked like he had something long inside of his pants. Vince yelled "What are you doing you idiot, get back upstairs, you've already stabbed him". Vince was saying that Mr Savickas was fxxcked, he was going to tell his friends where Mr Savickas was.

1. A Victoria Police record provided to Homes Victoria indicated that police attended Mr Galasso's apartment after the stabbing and located the knife that was used, placed in a bedroom wardrobe under clothes. Mr Galasso was arrested and bailed to appear in the Magistrates' Court. He made full admissions to stabbing the victim but stated that he did so in self-defence. He said:

"This man came down and tried to push me and that's why I stabbed him,"

1. Mr Galasso was charged with intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, assault with a weapon without excuse, and using a controlled weapon without excuse. He has previous assault charges and has been a respondent in six intervention orders.

1. I was provided with three files of CCTV footage without audio in respect of the events of 23 October 2023.
2. CCTV from the lift on that date shows the following sequence of events, which do not always accord with Mr Savickas's written account or Mr Galasso's statements to police. The first person to enter the lift on Level 11 is the elderly female resident. Mr Savickas enters on Level 8 and stands toward the back of the lift. The man identified as Ivan enters on Level 5, and stands at the front of the lift facing the door. Shortly after the lift door closes, Ivan turns to Mr Savickas and there is a short exchange before Ivan again turns away to face the door. As the lift reaches the ground floor, the elderly female resident exits, Mr Savickas then pushes to the front of the lift, and there is again a short exchange between Mr Savickas and Ivan. Mr Savickas then head butts Ivan in the face. In retaliation, Ivan grabs Mr Savickas by the neck of his t-shirt, then presses his fingers into Mr Savickas's jaw and around his neck. Ivan lets go when he is pushed to the back of the lift by Mr Savickas.
3. Vince comes into view through the open lift doors at the point where Mr Savickas is being grabbed by Ivan. He has a clear view of Ivan manhandling Mr Savickas, but I am unable to conclude that he witnessed the preceding head butt by Mr Savickas. After pushing Ivan away, Mr Savickas attempts to exit the lift but is facing sideways as he leaves, looking at Ivan. Mr Savickas is then aggressively pushed by Vince back into the lift, who appears to attempt to throw a punch at Mr Savickas. Mr Ryan then intervenes and both Mr Savickas and Ivan exit the lift. The involvement of Mr Galasso in this incident is not evident from the lift CCTV but it can be seen that, at some point, Mr Savickas has received an injury to this shoulder which has drawn blood.
4. CCTV from the foyer on the same date and at the same time shows Vince approaching the lift from one direction and Mr Galasso approaching from the other. Vince arrives at the open lift door first and appears to become involved in the interchange between Ivan and Mr Savickas, as he partly enters the lift. As Mr Savickas is attempting to exit, Mr Galasso approaches, having already taken a knife from his pocket. He stabs Mr Savickas in the shoulder whilst Mr Savickas is facing away from him. He then attempts to stab Mr Savickas again twice before Mr Ryan intervenes.
5. After Mr Savickas exits the lift, Vince appears to speak to Mr Savickas in an aggressive fashion and both Mr Galasso and Vince follow Mr Savickas as he walks away. CCTV from the front door area of the building shows that Vince followed Mr Savickas to the front door and continued to speak and point at Mr Savickas in an aggressive fashion until Mr Savickas leaves the building.
6. It is not evident from the CCTV footage that Vince is wearing gold knuckle dusters as stated by Mr Ryan.

Findings in respect of the events on 23 October 2024

1. Neither Mr Galasso nor Vince gave evidence at the hearing to explain why they behaved as they did.[7] In submissions it was argued that the stabbing had occurred in the context of the assault on Mr Galasso by Mr Savickas in June 2023 and Mr Galasso's consequent fear of harm in his home environment. It was because Mr Savickas physically attacked another man that Mr Galasso acted as he did, being fearful for himself and the safety of others.
2. The best evidence of this event is provided by the CCTV footage. None of the residents involved in this incident, with the exception of Mr Ryan, are blame free, all having behaved in an aggressive and totally inappropriate manner.
3. As noted, from the footage I viewed, I concluded that Vince would have first seen Ivan's aggression toward Mr Savickas, and not the head butt that started the physical exchange between the two, yet it was Mr Savickas who was attacked by first Vince and then Mr Galasso. It is also concerning that Mr Galasso drew the knife as he approached the lift and before he had a view of events. He is no danger of harm at that or any other point and does not try to remove himself from the incident. He stabs Mr Savickas in the back of the shoulder when Mr Savickas's back is turned to him.
4. In my view, the CCTV shows that both Vince and Mr Galasso attacked Mr Savickas, in circumstances where Mr Savickas was trying to exit the lift after a physical altercation with Ivan, and when Ivan was not under direct threat, the physical altercation between the two having ended. Neither were Vince or Mr Galasso at threat of harm.
5. I find that Mr Galasso endangered the safety of another resident Mr Savickas by stabbing him. The matters relied upon in the notice to vacate in respect of 23 October 2023 have been proved, on the balance of probabilities, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the consequences which may follow this finding.[8]

The incident on 13 April 2023 involving Mr Christopher Ibrahim

"On 13 April 2024, your visitor, Vincent Gregorio, assaulted your neighbour, Mr Christopher Ibrahim, by hitting him in the throat and attempting to choke him."__[9]

1. In a statement made to police by Mr Christopher Ibrahim, dated 15 April 2024, he stated that on Saturday 13 April 2024, he was leaving his apartment, and he ran into his neighbour Mr Simon Peters, who told him that he had been pushed over by Vince. As Mr Ibrahim exited the front of the building, he saw Vince and asked him if he had pushed Mr Peters over. Vince then started screaming at Mr Ibrahim and came right up into his face. Mr Ibrahim told him to back off and then Vince hit him with an open hand to the throat.
2. Mr Ibrahim told Vince that he was calling the police and he walked away. Vince and Mr Galasso started to follow Mr Ibrahim and were videotaping him and saying things. Mr Ibrahim walked around the back of the building and sat down with some of the older neighbours of the building. Vince came at him and started yelling at him, saying Mr Ibrahim was a paedophile and that he sold drugs to kids. Vince then grabbed Mr Ibrahim by the throat and started choking him. Mr Ibrahim went to poke Vince in the eye, and he let go.
3. Mr Ibrahim gave evidence at the hearing that was consistent with his written statement. He further stated that he had pressed charges but was not aware of the status of the police investigation. He had not applied for an IVO but agreed Vince had taken out an IVO against him.

1. In a statement made to police by Mr Simon Peters, dated 17 April 2024, he stated that on Saturday 13 April 2024, he was assaulted by Vince. He also stated that after Vince left, Mr Peters told Mr Ibrahim what had happened. Mr Ibrahim then went to Vince who was still nearby and asked him why he had assaulted Mr Peters. Vince then choked Mr Ibrahim in front of Mr Peters. Vince was swearing and carrying on. Vince tried to push Mr Ibrahim down. He tried to grab his neck a few times. He grabbed his neck and pushed his head.

1. In a statement made to police by Mr Muharem Hasanagic, dated 18 April 2024, Mr Hasanagic, who had been a resident in the high rise for five months, stated that he saw Mr Peters on 13 April 2024 when he went outside to the common area. Mr Peters told him that Vince had punched and pushed him. As he and Mr Peters were talking, Mr Hasanagic heard yelling and screaming at the front of the building. He went around to the front of the building to see what was happening. He saw Mr Ibrahim running away from Vince and Mr Galasso. Both Vince and his father were running after Mr Ibrahim with their mobile phones. They were yelling and screaming at Mr Ibrahim.
2. Mr Ibrahim then sat down on the bench in the common area of the building. Vince was yelling and screaming at Mr Ibrahim, who was sitting down not saying anything back. Vince was standing up right in front of Mr Ibrahim. Mr Ibrahim was not aggressive. He looked like he did not want to be involved in trouble.
3. Vince then jumped on top of Mr Ibrahim and with both hands, started to press Mr Ibrahim's neck. Vince pushed Mr Ibrahim's neck and head against the wall. It was 40 to 50 seconds until Mr Ibrahim somehow stood up and pushed Vince away. Vince then stood like he was boxing and asked Mr Ibrahim to fight. Mr Ibrahim then went to another bench away from Vince. After that, Vince went to the driveway, and he was yelling towards Mr Ibrahim saying you are a paedophile and a drug dealer. Mr Hasanagic saw red marks on Mr Ibrahim's neck and took photos. Mr Peters had a cut on his hand and elbow.
4. Mr Hasanagic gave evidence at the hearing that was consistent with his written statement.

1. Ms Janet Rooks gave evidence at the hearing by telephone. She has been a resident in the high rise for nearly 17 years and is good friends with Vince and Mr Galasso.
2. Ms Rooks said that on 13 April 2024, she was sitting on the bench outside with her friend, Helen. Vince and Mr Galasso were standing in front of them. Suddenly Mr Ibrahim came rushing towards them and squeezed behind Vince. Mr Ibrahim started to look quite angry and was getting close to Vince, their noses almost touched. Mr Ibrahim was saying things, but she could not hear what he was saying. She did hear him say to Vince "You are nothing but a paedophile." Vince put his hand on Mr Ibrahim's chest and tried to push him away by placing his hand at the top of his chest. There were words said between the two of them, but she could not say what those words were. Mr Ibrahim seemed more heated than Vince. She did not hear Mr Ibrahim ask Vince if he had pushed Mr Peters. There is a lot of traffic noise in the area.
3. After Mr Ibrahim left, she and Helen talked to Vince and Mr Galasso for five minutes or so and then Vince and Mr Galasso went to the bus stop. They did not follow Mr Ibrahim, nor scream at him as he walked away. It was not possible that Vince choked Mr Ibrahim a short time later because they went to the bus stop. Any such allegation was a lie.

1. A handwritten statement from Vince (undated and unsigned)[10] stated that on 13 April 2024, he was at the front of the building with Mr Galasso and two other residents, Janet and Helen. Mr Ibrahim came up to him and asked, "Why the fxxk did you hit Simon, he's an old man, I should kill you". Vince responded, "Get out of my face, I don't trust you and you're going to hit me and I didn't touch him so fxxk off". Mr Ibrahim said, "I don't believe you, watch your back" and he nudged Vince. Vince shoved him away then Mr Ibrahim said he was "calling the cops, you hurt my neck". He kept being smart, so Vince started recording him. When he stopped recording Mr Ibrahim made threats to kill him. Vince shoved him in self-defence and called police.
2. In the statement, Vince essentially asserted that Mr Peters had sent Mr Ibrahim to kill him, and he was acting in self-defence.

Findings in respect of the events on 13 April 2024 involving Christopher Ibrahim

1. Neither Mr Galasso nor Vince gave evidence at the hearing.[11] In submissions it was argued that it was Mr Ibrahim who instigated this incident, who accused Vince of being a paedophile, and that Vince pushed Mr Ibrahim away when he put his face close to that of Vince.
2. It is evident there was a heated exchange between Mr Ibrahim and Vince, and that it was Mr Ibrahim who approached Vince. Each witness agrees that Mr Ibrahim placed his face very close to that of Vince, words were exchanged, and Vince pushed Mr Ibrahim away. There is a dispute over whether, in doing so, Vince hit Mr Ibrahim in the throat or pushed his chest. I am unable to be satisfied about which of these accounts is true.
3. Accounts differ as to what happened next, with Ms Rook asserting that Mr Galasso and Vince did not follow Mr Ibrahim as they went to the bus stop. On the other hand, Mr Hasanagic witnessed Mr Ibrahim being followed by Mr Galasso and Vince and them shouting at him.
4. Having viewed the conduct of Vince and Mr Galasso in the video of 23 October 2023, I consider it more likely that they would have pursued Mr Ibrahim in anger. Such a response would be consistent with their pursuit of Mr Savickas and Vince's aggressive demeanour toward Mr Savickas on that video. I also consider that Mr Hasanagic was a disinterested witness. He had not lived at the high rise for long and did not appear to have any particular connections with the parties, apart from being a fellow resident. I further note that both he and Mr Peters gave sworn evidence that they witnessed Vince holding Mr Ibrahim by the throat. In addition, the photographs taken by Mr Hasanagic showed red marks on both the sides and the front of Mr Ibrahim's neck.
5. I prefer the evidence of Mr Ibrahim, Mr Peters and Mr Hasanagic over that of Vince and Ms Rooks. Accordingly, I find that Mr Galasso's visitor, Vince, endangered the safety of another resident, Mr Ibrahim. The matters relied upon in the notice to vacate, insofar as they allege that Vince attempted to choke Mr Ibrahim on 13 April 2024, have been proved on the balance of probabilities, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the consequences which may follow this finding.

The incident on 13 April 2024 involving Mr Simon Peters

"On 13 April 2024 Vincent Gregorio assaulted [the] neighbour Mr Simon Peters, by punching him in the chest and pushing him to the ground, causing injury."[12]

1. In a statement made to police by Mr Simon Peters, dated 17 April 2024, he said that on Saturday 13 April 2024, he was sitting on a bench next to the building exit when Vince came straight to him, punched him on the chest and pushed him, causing him to fall down on the concrete floor. When Mr Peters stood up, Vince started yelling and screaming and kept saying "I kill you, I kill you". As a result of the assault, he suffered cuts and bruises on his finger and a sore elbow. Mr Peters stated "This has been going on for around 12 months. This is probably the fourth time he has assaulted me."
2. Mr Peters was unable to attend the hearing but provided an Affidavit dated 7 June 2024 to similar effect. He also stated that the attack on him was in breach of an IVO Mr Peters had taken out against Vince in February 2023, with a further interim order made on 17 April 2024. He had been approached by Vince on several occasions in the foyer of the building when Vince had threatened to shoot him. He stated that Vince and Mr Galasso stalked him in the building and that he had seen Mr Galasso carry a knife and a screwdriver.

1. A handwritten statement from Vince Galasso (undated and unsigned) stated that he was downstairs talking to Ivor. Mr Peters came within two metres of him, and he said something to Vince. Vince then said, "Simon you're in breach of your order, go fxxk yourself". Then Mr Peters said "I've got the order against you and you can't be within 5 metres, so you fxxk off ... You know I'm a federal government worker and I'm also protected by my two building managers... so watch out". Vince responded "Just fxxk off and leave me alone". Then Mr Peters pushed Vince and Mr Peters fell over. Vince then left and rang the police but as he was leaving Mr Peters rang someone. Vince heard him say "Come down now and let's kill Vince now". Ivor was a witness.
2. The statement included handwritten notes about a phone call from Ivor alleging that Ivor and others had heard Mr Ibrahim saying he was going to bash Vince, and Mr Ryan saying "kill Vince instead". Ivor, Janet and Helen would come forward when police investigated.

Findings in respect of the events on 13 April 2024 involving Simon Peters

1. Neither Mr Galasso nor Vince gave evidence at the hearing. In submissions it was argued that the incident had occurred in the context of the IVO in place against Mr Peters, protecting Vince. Vince had provided a statement to police that differed to Mr Peters' account. Victoria Police had applied for an IVO to protect Mr Peters, but it referred only to a push and not a punch.
2. Mr Peters' evidence consisted of a police statement and a sworn affidavit of his account of the events on 13 April 2024. I also note that Mr Hasanagic gave evidence that he saw Mr Peters had suffered a cut on his hand and elbow, consistent with a fall on to concrete.
3. I have only an unsigned document from Vince as to what occurred. In that document Vince asserted that Ivor was a witness, but Ivor did not attend to give evidence. As an aside, I do not find the handwritten note alleging that Mr Ryan and Mr Ibrahim had been overheard plotting to harm or kill Vince to be cogent or credible evidence. In any event, that allegation was not supported by direct evidence from Vince, Ivor or any other person.
4. I prefer the evidence of Mr Peters and Mr Hasanagic over the unsigned statement of Vince. Accordingly, I find that Mr Galasso's visitor, Vince, endangered the safety of another resident Mr Peters by pushing him via a hand or punch to the chest and causing him to fall. The matters relied upon in the notice to vacate in respect of Mr Peters on 13 April 2024 have been proved on the balance of probabilities, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the consequences which may follow this finding.

WAS THERE A CONTINUING DANGER WHEN THE NOTICE TO VACATE WAS GIVEN?

1. In Director of Housing v Pavletic [2002] VSC 438, Smith J. stated that as the legislation uses the term "endangers" that means the endangerment must be ongoing at the time the notice to vacate is given. Smith J. stated:

..the prima facie interpretation of the phrase "endangers the safety of occupiers" is that it refers to a danger to such safety existing at the time of the notice to vacate. The drafter chose the words "endangers" and if it had been intended to have a meaning other than "is endangering" some other form of language would have been used, such as "has endangered"... The consideration of the purposes and scheme of the Act and the consequences of the construction advanced support the prima facie interpretation...

1. Smith J. concluded "endangers" means "is endangering" and said:

It is one thing to empower a landlord with the power to give a notice and provide a blunt and speedy procedure where, at the time of the notice, acts or omissions of the tenant's visitors are endangering the safety of occupiers of neighbouring premises. It is another to give such a power and procedure where there is no such present endangerment but there was in the past.

1. The Director's Guidelines on "Endanger", which I am also required to take into account under the legislation, [13] reinforce the requirement for ongoing endangerment.
2. The relevant Guidelines state:

The nature of the act or omission should be considered in relation to the ordinary meaning of the word 'endanger' and should constitute a real exposure to danger.

Behaviour which is anti-social or a nuisance is not sufficient to constitute a danger to the target.

Behaviour which is limited to threats and intimidation, by itself, will also not be considered to endanger the target...However, if there is a real likelihood that the threat may be carried out (for example, if it is combined with aggressive behaviour and/or prior actions) then the threat may be considered a danger to the target of the action.

There must be a temporal connection between the danger and the notice to vacate (i.e., the danger must be ongoing at the time the notice is given).

1. In the present matter, three incidents of endangerment have been proved to the relevant standard. Firstly, that Mr Galasso stabbed a neighbour, Mr Savickas, on 23 October 2023. This occurred in the context of ongoing conflict between the two. Mr Savickas, however, vacated in December 2023 and at the time the notice to vacate was given there was no risk of endangerment to him as a neighbour. Nor was there a sufficient temporal connection between this event (when taken in isolation) and the giving of the notice to vacate.
2. Secondly, that Vince physically assaulted two other neighbours on 13 April 2024, again in the context of ongoing conflict between Vince and Mr Peters. The notice to vacate was issued on 22 April 2024. I am satisfied there is a sufficient temporal connection between the events of 13 April 2024 and the giving of the notice on 22 April 2024. As noted by Member Good in Director of Housing v Fauth (Residential Tenancies) [2015] VCAT 403:

The notice was not issued and served on the tenant until 9 days after the event... which is not an undue delay in the circumstances. In my view, it is both appropriate and desirable for the Director of Housing and indeed, the police to take whatever time is necessary to fully investigate such incidents prior to taking any further potentially serious action, as eventuated in this case.

1. I also note that the three events that have been proved, when taken together, are arguably consistent with the examples cited in the Director's Guidelines, as follows:

It is possible that a single act or omission may give rise to an ongoing danger, however in most cases**, ongoing danger will also take into account where there is a history of conflict between the renter and the target, and the pattern of behaviour** displayed by the renter.

If a renter commits a violent incident, which is then followed by ongoing threats and intimidation by the renter's visitor, or where a renter stalks a neighbour, this may present a continuing danger to the target.

1. In the present case, the three incidents when taken together, and in the context of established conflict and discord between Mr Galasso and his son, on the one hand, and two of the three victims on the other, satisfy me that there was ongoing endangerment to the remaining neighbours at the time the notice to vacate was given (Mr Savickas having vacated). The three incidents establish a pattern of aggressive conduct displayed by Vince in particular, toward a number of neighbours, in circumstances where Mr Galasso is present, takes no steps to deter him, at times participates and has been known to carry a knife.
2. I find, based on the weight of evidence, that in relation to the incidents specified in the notice to vacate it was the renter and his son who were the aggressors and who endangered the safety of others. Further, the manner in which they have responded to ongoing conflict with neighbours shows a pattern of behaviour that represented a continuing danger to neighbours at the time when the notice to vacate was given.

IS IT REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONATE TO MAKE A POSSESSION ORDER?

1. Section 330(1)(f) states that, among other considerations, the Tribunal must make a possession order if satisfied that it is reasonable and proportionate to do so, taking into account the interests of the parties and other residents and the impact of a possession order on them, as well as the factors in section 330A of the Act.
2. The relevant factors set out in section 330A of the Act are considered in detail below.

The nature, frequency and duration of the conduct of the renter which led to the notice to vacate being given

1. Homes Victoria submitted that the three incidents listed on the notice to vacate were serious assaults. Each resulted in police attendance, with charges being laid in relation to the stabbing and the other incidents being under police investigation. Given the number of assaults that led to the notice to vacate, and the period of time over which the assaults occurred, there has been a recurring and serious breach of the renter's obligations under the rental agreement.
2. On behalf of Mr Galasso, it was submitted that the 2024 incidents related to Vince and not the renter, Mr Galasso. The October 2023 incident was a one- off event of brief duration, in mitigating circumstances and it has not been repeated. Mr Galasso has been on bail since being charged in relation to the stabbing and he has not breached bail. Therefore, the conduct of the renter that led to the notice to vacate being given, is not frequent.
3. In the present case, I take into account that the stabbing of Mr Savickas was a serious event, however there was no further danger to Mr Savickas at the time the notice to vacate was given because he had vacated.
4. I accept that paragraph 330A(a) is directed at the conduct of the renter, and not the renter's visitor. The evidence presented in this case indicates a rather lengthy history of discord and aggression between Mr Galasso and his son on the one hand, and various neighbours on the other. I consider it relevant that Mr Galasso is present during altercations involving Vince's conduct toward neighbours, and that he does not deter him. In relation to the 2024 incidents, on each occasion Mr Galasso was present and did not attempt to intervene to prevent harm. The nature of the incidents involving Vince are also serious, with injuries incurred by residents in their 70s.
5. This factor weighs in favour of a possession order.

1. The breaches that have occurred in this case involve a knife, assaults causing injury, and other forms of aggressive behaviour on multiple occasions.
2. The breaches specified in the notice to vacate are serious, resulted in police attendance, injuries, intervention orders and criminal charges. They cannot be regarded as trivial.
3. This factor weighs in favour of a possession order.

Whether the breach was caused by the conduct of any person other than the renter

1. Two of the specified breaches in this case involved the conduct of Vince, and not Mr Galasso. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Galasso that the degree of culpability of Mr Galasso for the conduct of Vince was limited.
2. Homes Victoria asserted that Vince had essentially been living at the rented premises and that, by allowing his son to stay, Mr Galasso bore responsibility for his actions.
3. The evidence indicated to me that this factor might weigh in favour of an alternative order, such as a compliance order that excluded Vince from the rented premises. However, both parties indicated such an alternative course was not appropriate in this case. Homes Victoria stated that they had no confidence Mr Galasso and Vince would comply with such an order, while Mr Teng indicated that Mr Galasso was reliant on Vince's daily attendance at his home as his carer.
4. I accept that the conduct causing the breaches is in large part due to Mr Galasso's visitor, Vince. However, there is persistent ongoing conflict with neighbours, and a pattern of aggressive conduct from Vince in response to that conflict, which represents a risk of harm to others and that is likely to continue into the future.
5. Accordingly, with Mr Galasso taking no steps to prevent Vince's conduct toward neighbours whilst he visits, and where I am unable to make a compliance order excluding Vince, I consider this factor weighs in favour of a possession order.

Whether the renter has made an application for a family violence or personal safety intervention order

1. As noted above, there are multiple IVOs involving Mr Galasso, Vince and other residents. Many of these IVOs protect Mr Galasso or Vince.
2. Homes Victoria asserted that Mr Galasso and Vince are relying on the IVOs to establish a narrative that they are acting in self-defence when they assault other residents.
3. On the other hand, it was submitted that it was Mr Galasso who was the subject of violence and intimidation, so it was not reasonable to deem him to be the sole cause of the issues within the building and evict him into homelessness.
4. I am not privy to the evidence presented to the Magistrates Court that led to the various IVOs between residents in the building. Apart from application material and the IVOs themselves I was not presented with any direct witness testimony supporting the alleged aggression or events that have led to IVOs protecting Mr Galasso or Vince.
5. From my point of view, the fact that there are IVOs taken out for the protection of Mr Galasso and Vince and IVOs also taken out against them, underlines the seriousness of the ongoing conflict in the building. It also shows that IVOs have had little impact on stopping that conflict or preventing harm and injury.
6. Therefore, the existence of IVOs in favour of Mr Galasso do not weigh in favour of, or against, a possession order being made.

Whether the breach has been remedied as far as is practicable

1. Homes Victoria submitted that it was not possible for Mr Galasso to remedy the endangerment. Although there had been no further incidents since 13 April 2024, the victims continued to live in fear.
2. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Galasso that Victoria Police had applied for an IVO on behalf of Mr Peters, which mitigated the risk of further incidents. In addition, Mr Galasso had been referred to the local Tenancy Plus program and had been placed on a waiting list for support services. That program had the capacity to assist Mr Galasso with resolution of issues within the building.
3. As noted above, I take into account a lengthy history of conflict in the high rise. I do not consider that the various IVOs taken out by the residents in this case have resolved the conflict or prevented resultant harm to others. I was given no information about how the local Tenancy Plus program might assist to resolve the issues in the building or how long the wait list for services might be. I am not satisfied that the conflict between neighbours and the ongoing endangerment that this represents to residents, given Mr Galasso and Vince's response to that conflict, has been remedied. I consider this factor weighs in favour of a possession order.

Whether the renter has the capacity or soon will have the capacity to remedy the breach

1. It seems unlikely that there will be any change to the situation in the high rise in the foreseeable future.
2. There was clear evidence that the conduct of Vince and Mr Galasso inflames conflict between neighbours. Mr Galasso takes no steps to prevent Vince from engaging in verbal or physical altercations with others. There was nothing to indicate that the pattern of aggression that was in evidence before me will abate.
3. I find that this factor weighs in favour of a possession order.

The effect the conduct of the renter on others as a renter

1. In relation to the incidents specified in the notice to vacate, Mr Savickas gave evidence that the conduct of Mr Galasso had a significant effect on him and affected his mental health, but he has now relocated to different premises.
2. Mr Peters and Mr Ibrahim gave evidence that they have been impacted by the assaults perpetrated by Vince rather than the renter. To the extent that Mr Galasso's conduct as a renter impacts on them, it is limited to the fact that he continues to allow Vince to attend daily, and does not take steps to prevent Vince's conduct when he is aggressive toward others.
3. In addition, there is evidence that Mr Peters has also made several complaints to Homes Victoria about the conduct of Mr Galasso or Vince, as follows:
   • On 20 March 2023, Mr Peters reported that he was in the community room playing on the computer when Vince came in and threatened him. Vince reportedly said, "I'm going to kill you if you try to call the police" and "police know me very well, they are scared of me - they can't stop me I will kill you". He also said, "I work in security - I have a gun - I will shoot you". Mr Peters asked him to go away, but he continued to threaten him, shake him and grabbed him by the back of the neck - this took approximately 20 minutes. Mr Peters reported to Homes Victoria: "This is the third time he has threatened me - the other two times was approximately mid November 2022 and two weeks later."
   • On 11 December 2023, Mr Peters reported that he was coming into the foyer, when Mr Galasso and Vince exited the lift. They started yelling, saying "you're still here"..."the bastard".
4. Mr Peters and Mr Ibrahim both provided evidence of their ongoing fear of future conflict or threats of harm, from Vince in particular. Again, to the extent that it is Vince's conduct that is at issue, Mr Galasso's conduct as a renter impacts on others to the extent that he continues to invite Vince to the rented premises daily, and does not take steps to prevent Vince's conduct when he is aggressive toward others.
5. Homes Victoria further sought to rely on additional incidents that are relevant to this consideration:
   • Incident one. The stalking of Vesna Sentic, a resident of the building, when she exits her apartment;
   • Incident two. The communication of threats to Mr Savickas and Ms Sentic; and
   • Incident three. The visible possession of weapons in the common areas of the building.

1. Ms Sentic attended the hearing and gave evidence. She said she had been a resident in the high rise for nearly 11 years and has an apartment on the same floor as Mr Galasso, with three apartments in between. Her relations with Mr Galasso are very bad. He and Vince continually call her names, threaten her, call the police and tell them lies about her. If she opens her door or comes out of the lift, Mr Galasso can hear. He opens his door to see where she is going and what she is doing. He stands at the door watching her.
2. On one occasion she entered the lift and Vince followed her downstairs. He said, "I'm going to take care of you". He followed her outside, but there were people here. He went back into the building and then started yelling at her.
3. Last Saturday, Vince threatened her, saying he was going to destroy her life. He said: "Are you going to court bitch". She reported this to police and made a statement. Vince called police and told police that Ms Sentic came to the laundry with a long stick to attack and kill him. Police said they would check the cameras and would charge Vince with a making a false statement about Ms Sentic attacking them.
4. Ms Sentic further said that the problems started when her car was damaged. She installed cameras in her car and said that whoever it was they were going to have a problem. She knows Mr Galasso was the one who damaged her car. However, she has no physical evidence or proof. He damaged her plants because he doesn't like flowers. He stole a piece of furniture that she had put out in the common area because she had ordered new furniture.
5. Ms Sentic's evidence appeared to me to be somewhat exaggerated. I found it difficult to accept that she is subject to a barrage of constant threats and insults from Mr Galasso and Vince in the manner she described at the hearing. It is also difficult to accept that Mr Galasso would be able to hear and respond every time Ms Sentic opens her door or exits the lift. She has blamed Mr Galasso and his son for damaging residents' cars with no proof whatsoever. However, I do accept that there have likely been insults and threats on occasions, possibly traded between the parties, given the level of animosity between them, and the fact that she and others have made similar reports in the past.
6. Homes Victoria produced a record of complaints made by Ms Sentic against Mr Galasso and Vince. These include:
   • On 1 May 2024, Ms Sentic complained that Vince threatened to kill her, threatened to destroy her car, he was screaming. Yesterday Vince threatened her in the lifts.
   • On 5 January 2024, Ms Sentic complained that she was threatened in the lifts on 4 January 2024 at approximately 5:15pm by Vince. The police were called but did not attend.
   • On 28 December 2023, Ms Sentic called to advise that Mr Galasso had threatened her and damaged her car. She had contacted the police. Ms Sentic said that Mr Galasso was stalking her all the time and she felt unsafe.
   • On 10 July 2023, Ms Sentic reported that she had been threatened by Mr Galasso many times. On Saturday, 7 July 2023 she noticed her car's right rear light was smashed. She suspected this was done by Mr Galasso as he continuously followed her. Ms Sentic said that Mr Galasso and Vince had damaged several other residents' cars, but they were too scared to lodge a report.
7. I find that there is evidence of aggressive verbal conflict between Mr Galasso and his visitor on the one hand and Ms Sentic on the other. Ms Sentic's evidence was that the conduct of both Mr Galasso and Vince had affected her health, her ability to sleep and that she needed to avoid certain areas in the building where she may meet them. She said that if a possession order was not made, she would need to relocate due to fear. I accept that the conduct of Mr Galasso and Vince, who attends the premises as Mr Galasso's invited visitor, is having an adverse impact on Ms Sentic.
8. It was submitted on behalf of the renter that at its highest, Ms Sentic's evidence did not amount to evidence of endangerment to her, only of threats and intimidation. I agree. However, paragraph 330A(g) relates to the conduct of the renter generally and how that conduct impact on others. It is not confined to instances of endangerment.

1. Several residents gave evidence in relation to possession of weapons in the common areas of the building. Ms Sentic said in the course of her evidence that she saw Mr Galasso walking about with a screwdriver a long time ago. At the time she did not consider there was anything untoward about this. On 21 January 2022, Mr Peters complained that he noticed "Greg" breaking an armrest. He was carrying a knife in his pocket and a screwdriver. He may also have unscrewed chairs in the area posing a threat to safety.
2. These sightings were some time ago and it is not evident that the screwdriver was being carried about as some form of weapon. However, it is of concern that Mr Galasso would be carrying a knife in 2022 and again on 23 October 2023, which he then used as a weapon to stab Mr Savickas. The stabbing of Mr Savickas, which is known to other residents such as Ms Sentic, would no doubt have an impact on their sense of safety in the building.
3. I have found there is ongoing inter-resident conflict, threats and aggressive conduct involving Mr Galasso and Vince, coupled with two assaults causing injury for which I have found Vince responsible and a stabbing for which I have found Mr Galasso responsible. There is no doubt these incidents would have a significant impact on the target of such behaviours, and more broadly on other residents' sense of safety within the building, when they become aware of such events. This factor weighs in favour of a possession order.

Any Community Impact Statement provided by Homes Victoria

1. Homes Victoria provided a Community Impact Statement dated 8 May 2024 indicating that the high rise comprises 135 units for residents aged 55 to 99 years of age. The statement outlined the direct impact of the events specified in the notice to vacate on Mr Savickas, Mr Ibrahim and Mr Peters.
2. It went on to state that another neighbour who wished to remain anonymous had reported a physical attack and ongoing verbal attacks from Mr Galasso and his son, that the neighbour suffered PTSD and depression as a result and had requested relocation. Further, Victoria Police had informed Homes Victoria that they have received multiple reports of alleged violence by residents within the building involving Mr Galasso and Vince. A number of neighbours have also reported that the conduct of Mr Galasso and Vince impact on their mental health and well-being. That conduct has limited the residents from engaging in activities in the common areas, where the assaults have occurred. Elderly residents feel unsafe and insecure.
3. Homes Victoria also pointed out in the statement that the conduct of Mr Galasso and Vince had impacted its ability to provide a safe environment for residents.
4. In submissions for Mr Galasso, it was argued that anonymous complaints from residents and Victoria Police that lack particularisation should be given little weight.
5. I agree that whilst I am required to take into account a Community Impact Statement, it is difficult to give any weight to anonymised allegations. I prefer to rely on the direct evidence given by the witnesses at hearing and who provided written statements as to the impact of Mr Galasso's conduct as a renter, and also the conduct of Vince, being a person who Mr Galasso allows into the building, and the rented premises, as a visitor.
6. To the extent that the Community Impact Statement outlines the impact on Mr Savickas, Mr Ibrahim and Mr Peters, the Statement weighs in favour of a possession order. Further for the reasons discussed above, I accept that assaults, a stabbing and the presence of police would impact on the general feeling of safety for any elderly resident in the high rise who was aware of such events.

Whether any other order or course of conduct is reasonably available instead of a possession order

1. Section 332A enables the Tribunal in a case such as this to make a compliance order under section 212 of the Act, rather than a possession order.
2. As discussed earlier, I considered that a possible alternative course was to make a compliance order that excluded Vince from visiting the rented premises. Several witnesses gave evidence that their main safety concern centred on Vince. However, both parties rejected this as a reasonable course of action due to Vince's role as Mr Galasso's carer.[14]
3. I do not consider that a general compliance order requiring Mr Galasso and his visitor to refrain from any conduct that endangers the safety of others will be effective. Numerous IVOs between residents have not prevented incidents of harm. Conflict and tensions within the building are evidently ongoing.
4. I conclude that there are no alternative orders or courses of conduct, such as a compliance order, reasonably available.

As the case requires, the behaviour of the residential rental provider

1. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Galasso that Homes Victoria had consistently failed to adequately respond to Mr Galasso's and Vince's concerns about other residents and as a result the conflict had escalated.
2. There is evidence of several complaints made by Vince or Mr Galasso to Homes Victoria as follows:
   • On 30 April 2024, Vince made a complaint that his father had been served with a nine day notice to vacate because of other people's lies. Vince stated he had been attacked twice while visiting his father in the last week. He said he had a list of witnesses to back up his claims.
   • On or about 15 April 2024, Vince made a complaint that Mr Ibrahim was causing problems for other renters, stealing power from the building, and making drugs in the unit. Vince alleged Mr Ibrahim was protected by the building managers. Vince also stated that one of the building managers had been parking outside the building for hours watching what was going on. Vince complained that Mr Peters claimed he was employed by the Department and was intimidating other renters. Mr Peters made false reports to police and to the Footscray Housing office. Mr Peters had Vince under surveillance illegally. Vince was attacked by another renter who he had an IVO against and who was claiming to have protection from the building managers. This renter had previously, by another name, been evicted from the property and had managed to get back in.
   • On or about 15 March 2024, Vince made a complaint that the neighbours had been lying to police and the Magistrates Court. A lady in another unit had threatened to kill him on multiple occasions and was under investigation, and he had reported it to Homes Victoria, but the Department was not co-operative.
   • On 10 November 2023, Mr Galasso called to say no one was helping him. On 24 October 2023, Vince called and advised that there had been an incident with Mr Galasso and Mr Savickas. Vince advised that yesterday afternoon there was a dispute around the lift on the ground floor. Things escalated between Mr Galasso and Mr Savickas and Mr Galasso stabbed Mr Savickas with a kitchen knife. Vincent admitted to his father's behaviour but said it was in self-defence. Vince advised that the building is tired of Mr Savickas, as he regularly fights with other renters and is a general nuisance.
   • On or about 8 June 2023, Mr Galasso accused Mr Savickas of assault.
3. The evidence shows, once again, that there are complaints made by various neighbours against each other, and this has placed Homes Victoria in a very difficult position. Documents indicate that the Department has reached out to speak to parties involved and encouraged the provision of any evidence related to police complaints and the like. It appears to me that it has attempted to alleviate residents' concerns without success.
4. Homes Victoria stated that it had attempted to engage Mr Galasso and offer relocation to more suitable low-density accommodation. However, Mr Galasso had refused to engage.
5. Submissions for Mr Galasso acknowledged that he had been offered a transfer in April 2024, but stated that it was declined because it was in the same building as Mr Savickas, and Mr Galasso had not been offered any other options.
6. A representative from Homes Victoria, Ms Liz O'Leary, gave evidence at the hearing and denied that Mr Galasso had been offered any specific accommodation, let alone accommodation in a building where Mr Savickas resides.
7. I note that there are file records evidencing attempts by Homes Victoria to engage Mr Galasso generally in a conversation about relocation, which were essentially rebuffed by him.
8. I conclude that this factor weighs in favour of a possession order being made, as Homes Victoria has attempted to find alternative solutions, and offered relocation as an option, but Mr Galasso has not been open to alternative arrangements that could have prevented future conflict.

Any other matter the Tribunal considers relevant

1. Mr Galasso and Vince have asserted that they are not the aggressors, but are victims of threats and assaults from others. It is possible that there may have been past verbal and physical altercations between the parties, as asserted by Mr Galasso and his son.
2. The difficulty is that I have no direct witness testimony to that effect, apart from some limited evidence from Ms Rooks in circumstances where I have been unable to accept the entirety of her account. On the other hand, multiple witnesses have signed police statements or affidavits and presented evidence at the hearing that it is Vince, and to a lesser extent Mr Galasso, who is endangering others and creating fear in other residents. Further, I have video evidence of the aggressive conduct of Mr Galasso and Vince on 23 October 2023, as described above.
3. Finally, to my mind a relevant factor must be whether the rental agreement is sustainable into the future.
4. As discussed above, I find there is ongoing conflict among residents in the high rise that invariably leads to aggressive incidents involving Mr Galasso and Vince. There have been three assaults by them on other residents. There is no evidence to show tensions have dissipated. There is evidence of residents who live in ongoing fear of their living environment. Such matters weigh in favour of a possession order being made.

The impact of a possession order on the residential rental provider, the renter and other residents

1. Homes Victoria submitted that if the rental agreement was allowed to continue, it would make it hard for the Department to perform its statutory duty to provide public housing residents with safe and secure housing. In addition, Homes Victoria has had to divert its resources to relocating residents, reporting conduct to Victoria Police, and responding to and managing complaints from various residents within the building. I accept Homes Victoria's submission regarding the impact on the rental provider.
2. Mr Galasso submitted that a possession order would be overwhelmingly harsher on Mr Galasso, than the refusal of such an order would have on Homes Victoria and other parties. The potential impact on him would be homelessness at the age of 70 years. He has medical conditions and eviction would impact on his ability to seek treatment within his local community. He also has language barriers, so his capacity to seek alternative accommodation was limited. He has limited financial resources, so private rental was not an option. Due to the impact of waiting lists, he would be homeless for a significant period.
3. I agree that a possession order would be overwhelming harsher on Mr Galasso than Homes Victoria, as he would lose his home of 15 years. Further there are no clear accommodation options available to him immediately. Ms Liz O'Leary gave evidence that Mr Galasso would be linked in with community housing groups for alternative housing, but she could not say what the waiting list might be for such accommodation. Homes Victoria is apparently no longer willing to offer a suitable alternative to Mr Galasso. On the other hand, I note that Vince, who is Mr Galasso's daily carer, claimed to live elsewhere. There was no evidence about his accommodation or any explanation as to why Mr Galasso could not live with him. Nevertheless, I consider there is the potential for homelessness and consequent hardship for Mr Galasso.
4. The impact on others has been canvassed above. Several residents gave direct evidence about the impact of the events specified in the notice to vacate on them and their health. I also have no doubt that ongoing assaults within a high-rise complex would create an atmosphere of anxiety for elderly residents. It is unreasonable to expect a large community of older residents within a high rise to live with conflict and aggression.
5. Having considered the relevant factors in section 330A, the interests of the parties and other residents in the high rise, and the impact of the possession order as required under section 330(1)(f), I find that it is reasonable and proportionate to make such an order.

1. If a possession order is to be made, the Tribunal may, pursuant to section 333(1B) of the Act, consider any special requirements the renter may have to access relevant social supports or alternative accommodation.
2. Homes Victoria requested a termination date 7 days from the date of the order, due to the serious nature of the incidents relied upon in the notice to vacate.
3. However, taking into account all of the evidence before me and the submissions of the parties, I consider a possession order with a vacate date of 11 August 2024 strikes a more appropriate balance, being a date which will hopefully ensure Mr Galasso is linked into emergency accommodation and any other services he may require. The execution period for the warrant of possession will be a period of 30 days, which will allow police some flexibility for Mr Galasso, if Homes Victoria chooses to enforce the possession order.

[1] Both parties filed additional submissions dated 21 June 2024 (for the applicant) and 24 June 2024 (for the respondent).

[3] See sections 322A and 330A(ga) of the Act.

[6] Notice to Vacate dated 22 April 2024.

[7] In submissions dated 24 June 2024, it was stated that evidence was not given by Mr Galasso and Vince because Homes Victoria was not entitled to rely on an event occurring in October 2023 as a basis to issue a notice to vacate in April 2024.

[8] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336. The relevant standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, and the Tribunal must be reasonably satisfied that the applicant has proven each allegation to such a standard. The Tribunal must consider the seriousness of the allegations and the gravity of the consequences which may follow a particular finding.

[9] Notice to Vacate dated 22 April 2024.

[10] A typed copy was later provided at my request, also unsigned.

[11] In submissions dated 24 June 2024, it was stated that Mr Galasso instead chose to rely on the evidence of Ms Rooks, as a third-party witness.

[12] Notice to Vacate dated 22 April 2024.

[13] Section 330(3) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must have regard to any Guidelines issued by the Director when determining any application for possession which is supported by a notice to vacate under section 91ZJ.

[14] Mr Teng originally submitted that a compliance order excluding Vince would be a reasonable course of action, but after taking instructions, then indicated that Mr Galasso relied on Vince's daily attendance.