//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACAT 36
ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal
2026-07-09
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (www.acat.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HOVENDEN & ORS v EDWARDS (Residential Tenancies) [2026] ACAT 36
RT 1285/2025 Catchwords: RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – co-tenants – consecutive tenancy agreement – where lessor refused consent to remove a co-tenant and add a replacement co-tenant – summary of legislative framework – order to remove co-tenant with immediate effect – whether lessor’s blanket refusal to consider adding a new co-tenant was unreasonable – no power to award compensation – compensation claim dismissed
Legislation cited: Residential Tenancies Act 1997 ss 6C, 30AA, 35A, 35B, 35BA, 35C, 35D, 35E, 35EA, 35F, 35G, 83, Sch 1 (Standard Residential Tenancy Terms) ss 52, 64, 77-82
Cases cited: Icon Retail Investments Ltd and AGL ACT Retail Investments Pty Ltd (trading as ActewAGL Retail) v Eighani [2021] ACAT 118 Tribunal: Senior Member E Morrison
Date of Orders: 29 June 2026 Date of Reasons for Decision: 29 June 2026 Date of Publication: 9 July 2026 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ) CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) RT 1285/2025
BETWEEN: OLIVER HOVENDEN First Applicant/Tenant ABBY HILL Second Applicant/Tenant PULAK RAWAT Third Applicant/Tenant AND: JAN EDWARDS Respondent/Lessor
TRIBUNAL: Senior Member E Morrison
DATE: 29 June 2026
ORDER The Tribunal orders that:
……………………………….. Senior Member E Morrison REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction 1. The applicants were tenants in a three-bedroom apartment in the ACT.
The respondent lessor was represented in these proceedings by its managing agent, Hayman Partners.
The apartment had been a ‘share-house’ since 2022 with tenants coming and going under consecutive tenancy agreements.
In September 2025, Mr Hovenden sought the lessor’s consent to leave the tenancy and add a new co-tenant in his place. His personal circumstances made it unworkable for him to continue living at the premises. The other tenants agreed but the lessor refused. By that time, Mr Hovenden had moved into more suitable premises and was effectively paying ‘double rent’.
The lessor refused consent because none of the original 2022 tenants remained on the tenancy agreement. The managing agent told Mr Hovenden that the lessor should never have signed the current tenancy agreement.
Mr Hovenden applied to the Tribunal for an order to remove him from the tenancy and for the lessor to reimburse his rent.
Mr Hovenden acknowledged that, under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (the RT Act), a lessor can refuse consent to remove a co-tenant for any reason if the proposed leaving date is within the fixed term, as was the situation in this case.
However, he argued that the lessor’s refusal to add a new co-tenant was unreasonable and this entitled him to compensation for rent that he paid to the lessor following that refusal.
The lessor’s primary concern was that it had not conducted inspections between each consecutive tenancy agreement. To address that concern, the managing agent (on behalf of the lessor) proposed that the parties could either terminate the existing agreement and enter into a new one, and/or for the tenants to temporarily vacate the premises for 24 hours to allow the managing agent sufficient time to conduct a ‘full’ inspection and prepare an updated condition report.
After hearing from the parties, I made an order to immediately remove Mr Hovenden from the tenancy agreement. By that time, the lessor had agreed with the remaining tenants to add a replacement co-tenant, so it was unnecessary for me to determine that issue. I reserved my decision on compensation.
I am satisfied that the lessor’s conduct was generally unreasonable. However, the Tribunal does not have the power to award compensation in these circumstances.
I am also concerned that the managing agent’s proposed resolution may have exposed the lessor to multiple breaches of the tenancy agreement in relation to access, the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment, and unlawful termination.
The law relating to co-tenancies and consecutive tenancy agreements is complex.
This decision sets out key principles for how a tenant may be added to, or removed from, a residential tenancy agreement, what happens to condition reports in consecutive tenancy agreements, and the Tribunal’s powers to resolve co-tenancy disputes.
Background Consecutive tenancy agreements and the 2022 condition report
The current tenants rented the apartment (as a group) from November 2024. Ms Hill and Ms Rawat were already living at the apartment, but were not the ‘original’ tenants from 2022. Mr Hovenden was new.
On 17 November 2024, the parties entered into a fixed term tenancy agreement for five months.
When Mr Hovenden moved into the premises, he was provided with a copy of a condition report that had been signed by the ‘original’ tenants in 2022 (the 2022 report). Mr Hovenden paid his share of the bond which was registered with ACT Rental Bonds.
On 7 April 2025, the parties entered into a further fixed term tenancy agreement for 12 months.
The parties agreed that the lessor had not conducted any outgoing or incoming inspections or prepared any updated condition reports since the 2022 report.
The tenant’s request to be removed from the tenancy and add a new person
In early September 2025, a change to Mr Hovenden’s personal circumstances meant he needed to find more suitable rental accommodation. The tenants amicably agreed that Mr Hovenden should be allowed to leave the co-tenancy and started looking for someone to replace him. During that time, Mr Hovenden signed a second tenancy agreement to secure alternative premises.
On 11 September 2025, Mr Hovenden emailed the managing agent seeking the lessor’s consent to be removed from the tenancy. Mr Hovenden advised that he and the remaining tenants were searching for a replacement housemate.
The managing agent replied the following day, advising that: (a) the lessor refused consent; (b) the reason for refusal was that none of the original tenants (from the 2022 agreement) were parties to the April 2025 agreement; (c) the April 2025 agreement should not have been entered into; and (d) at the end of the fixed term (in April 2026), the tenants were required to vacate the premises, again because there were no ‘original’ tenants (from 2022) on the current lease.
On 19 September 2025, Mr Hovenden exchanged several emails with the managing agent. Among other things, he advised (emphasis added): I have an interested party ready to proceed if the landlord consents.
The managing agent replied, stating that the lessor could be placed in a difficult position if there were problems at the final inspection and that: …the situation has been reviewed in past ACAT cases, which have supported the importance of maintaining at least one original tenant on the lease for accountability.
No ACAT case references were provided. The managing agent asked Mr Hovenden if the tenants would consider breaking the lease instead.
On 25 September 2026, Mr Hovenden emailed the managing agent. He reiterated his requests for consent and advised that he had vacated the premises so there would be no issue with overcrowding. He noted that a lessor can refuse to remove a co-tenant during the fixed term for any reason, but that consent to add a new co-tenant must not be unreasonably withheld. Mr Hovenden correctly noted that the provisions in the RT Act dealing with adding and removing co-tenants operate independently of each other and asked the managing agent to clarify what ‘reasonable grounds’ the lessor was relying upon to withhold consent in this case. Mr Hovenden did not provide the name or details of the proposed new co-tenant.
The lessor continued to refuse consent to both requests.
Mr Hovenden continued to pay his rent for both properties until the ACAT hearing. It was readily apparent during the hearing that Mr Hovenden and the other co-tenants had acted reasonably and in good faith throughout the process.
Legislative framework —consecutive tenancy agreements What is a consecutive tenancy agreement?
A ‘consecutive tenancy agreement’ is formed where one residential tenancy agreement ends, and one or more tenants under that agreement continue to occupy 1 the premises under a new, consecutive agreement.
Each agreement is a separate contract between the parties named in it, but the RT Act prescribes processes for dealing with the bond and condition reports between each tenancy.
Condition reports
Section 29 of the RT Act provides that, where an original (or subsequent) condition report exists, the parties to a consecutive tenancy agreement do not need to prepare a new incoming condition report at the start of that tenancy. However, statements made in the original (or subsequent) report will be taken to be evidence of the condition of the premises on the day the report is given to the tenant/s.
In this case, the lessor was concerned that, at the end of Mr Hovenden’s tenancy (in April 2026 or later), the condition of the premises would be assessed by
1 Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RT Act), Dictionary (definition of ‘consecutive tenancy agreement’) reference to the original 2022 report, with fair wear and tear evaluated over four-year period involving multiple changes of tenant. Although no concerns had previously been raised about the condition of the premises, the lessor was concerned that its ability to claim against the bond or seek compensation from the tenants for damage to the premises might be adversely affected.
Legislative framework — removing a co-tenant from a tenancy agreement
Part 3A of the RT Act deals with co-tenancies.
Strict requirements apply when a co-tenant wants to leave a tenancy agreement, but the remaining tenants want to stay. These requirements are intended to preserve the rights and interests of the remaining tenants and the lessor, who may otherwise be adversely affected by a tenant’s early departure from the lease.
A co-tenant may only be removed from a tenancy agreement where one of the 2 following applies: (a) consent is given by the lessor and each remaining co-tenant; or 3 (b) the Tribunal make an order to remove the co-tenant; or (c) the co-tenant (or their dependent child) needs to vacate the premises due to 4 family violence.
If none of those circumstances apply, the co-tenant will remain a party to the agreement and must continue to pay rent and meet their other legal obligations until the tenancy terminates in accordance with the RT Act.
Request for consent under section 35A
2 RT Act, s 35A(1) 3 RT Act, s 35G(1)(a) or (d) 4 RT Act, s 46D 5 RT Act, s 35A(2)
If the leaving date falls within the fixed term: (a) the lessor and remaining tenant/s can choose to give or refuse consent, for 6 any reason, even if it is unreasonable; and (b) consent is taken to have been given by a party who does not respond within 7 21 days of receiving the written request.
If the leaving date falls during a periodic tenancy: 8 (a) the lessor and remaining tenant/s must not unreasonably refuse consent; (b) the lessor and remaining tenant/s will be assumed to have consented if they do not reply within 21 days of receiving the request and do not apply to 9 ACAT for an order permitting them to refuse consent.
This process ensures that a party cannot prevent a co-tenant from leaving the tenancy simply by ignoring the request.
With 14 days of a co-tenant being removed from the tenancy agreement, the remaining tenant/s must pay the leaving co-tenant’s share of the bond to them 10 (minus unpaid rent and other reasonable costs) and notify ACT Rental Bonds.
Leaving co-tenant can apply to ACAT where consent is refused
If consent is refused, the ‘leaving’ tenant can apply to the ACAT for an order to 11 remove them from the tenancy agreement.
The Tribunal may decide to remove the co-tenant immediately, or from a later 12 date it considers appropriate.
Whilst not expressly stated, it appears that a co-tenant may lodge an ACAT application to be removed from the tenancy without first seeking consent.
6 RT Act, s 35A(3)(a) 7 RT Act, s 35A(4)(a) 8 RT Act, s 35A(3)(b) 9 RT Act, s 35A(4); for applications to ACAT, see s 35G(2) where the lessor does not respond, and s 35G(1)(b) where a remaining tenant does not respond 10 RT Act, ss 35B(3), (4) 11 RT Act, s 35G(1)(a) 12 The RT Act does not prescribe when the removal order must take effect: see s 35G(1)(a) 13 However, if such an order is made, it cannot take effect for at least three weeks. This ensures the lessor and remaining tenant/s have the same time to dispute the application and/or make alternative arrangements as if consent had been requested beforehand.
Legislative framework — adding a new tenant to a tenancy agreement 14
There is also a strict process for adding a new person to a tenancy agreement.
An existing tenant must either: (a) obtain consent from the lessor and each other existing tenant to add the new co-tenant —– the request must be in writing and at least 14 days before the 15 proposed addition; or 16 (b) apply to the ACAT for an order to add the new co-tenant.
Notably, a lessor cannot seek to add a co-tenant to an existing tenancy agreement as this would interfere with the existing tenant/s’ rights to choose who they live with.
Process for refusing consent
13 RT Act, ss 35A(1)(b), 35G(1)(d); in these circumstances, the Tribunal may decline to award reimbursement of the ‘leaving’ tenant’s ACAT filing fee 14 The process in section 25C does not apply to social housing, crisis accommodation, granting a sub-tenancy or granting a bare licence: RT Act, ss 35C(1)(b) and (2); section 35E deals with adding a new tenants in social housing or crisis accommodation; section 72 of the Standard Residential Tenancy Terms (SRTT) set out in Schedule 1 to the RT Act deals with subletting 15 RT Act, ss 35C(3)(a) and (4) 16 RT Act, s 35C(3)(b) 17
The lessor must not unreasonably refuse consent to add a new co-tenant.
If the lessor wants to refuse consent, it must give written reasons to all other 18 existing tenants and the new person who wants to join the tenancy agreement. 19 Reasons must be given with 14 days of receiving the request.
Consent will be assumed if the lessor or an existing tenant does not respond within 20 14 days after receiving the request. This ensures that a new tenant is not prevented from joining the tenancy simply because a party fails to respond to the request.
Where a lessor does not give written reasons for the refusal within time, they will be treated as not having responded.
Where a lessor’s written notice is defective (for example, because no reasons are 21 given), there is a risk that the lessor will be treated as not giving notice at all and consent may be deemed to have been provided, although this will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case.
Where the parties consent to adding a co-tenant
17 RT Act, s 35C(5)(a) 18 RT Act, s 35C(5)(b) 19 RT Act, s 35C(6) 20 RT Act, s 35C(6) 21 Icon Retail Investments Ltd and AGL ACT Retail Investments Pty Ltd (trading as ActewAGL Retail) v Eighani [2021] ACAT 118 at [74] 22 RT Act, s 35C(7) 23 RT Act, s 35C(8) (d) within one day, the existing tenant/s must give the new co-tenant a copy of 24 the condition report for the premises. For consecutive tenancies, the existing tenants must give the original and any updated condition reports; and (e) within 14 days, the new co-tenant must pay their share of the bond to the existing tenant/s and notify ACT Rental Bonds that they have paid their 25 share. Challenging the lessor’s refusal to consent (with written reasons)
If the requesting tenant wants to challenge the lessor’s refusal to add a co-tenant, they may apply to the ACAT for a declaration that the refusal was unreasonable, 26 provided that all other existing tenants consented to the addition.
The requesting tenant must complete the consent process before applying to ACAT — this is different to the process for removing a co-tenant.
Where an ACAT application is lodged, the new person is automatically joined as 27 a co-tenant on the lodgement date. The significance of this is discussed below.
The lessor may lodge its own ACAT application to remove the new co-tenant in 28 certain circumstances.
Tribunal to determine whether lessor’s refusal was unreasonable
24 RT Act, s 29(5). Section 30AA deals with condition reports in consecutive tenancy agreements 25 RT Act, s 35F(2); also see s 35FA for consecutive tenancy agreements 26 RT Act, s 35D 27 RT Act, s 35D(3)(a) 28 See RT Act, s 35D(4) 29 RT Act, s 35G(3) (d) where an existing tenant occupies the premises under their employment 30 arrangements, whether the new person will occupy the premises under their own employment terms.
Practical and legal consequences of the ACAT process
30 See RT Act, s 6C 31 RT Act, s 35G(c)(i) 32 RT Act, s 35G(c)(ii) 33 RT Act, s 35D(3)(c) 34 RT Act, s 35F(2); also see s 35FA for consecutive tenancy agreements (i) the new person will be removed from the tenancy on the date that the Tribunal’s order is made (and the tenancy continues for the existing 35 tenant/s); (ii) within 14 days, the existing tenants must repay the new person’s share of the bond (minus unpaid rent and other reasonable costs) and notify 36 ACT Rental Bonds; and 37 (iii) within 21 days, the new person must vacate the premises.
The RT Act requires lessors to properly consider requests to add a co-tenant while 38 allowing them to protect their interests.
However, the process can create uncertainty, and a new person may be added to the tenancy agreement then later removed by the Tribunal.
For this reason, in deciding whether to apply to the ACAT to add a new co-tenant, tenants should carefully consider the lessor’s written reasons for refusal and why they consider those reasons to be unreasonable, with a view to providing supporting evidence to the Tribunal where appropriate.
Decision — request to remove Mr Hovenden from the tenancy agreement
From the outset, Mr Hovenden accepted that the lessor was entitled to refuse to remove him from the tenancy without needing to act reasonably, as the proposed leaving date fell within the 12-month fixed term.
Notwithstanding this, I exercised my discretion under section 35G(1)(a) to order that Mr Hovenden be removed from the co-tenancy with immediate effect.
In making that decision, I took into account the following: (a) The remaining co-tenants had consented to, and actively supported, Mr Hovenden’s removal.
35 RT Act, s 35D(5)(a)(i) 36 RT Act, s 35B 37 RT Act, s 35D(5)(a)(ii) 38 Revised Explanatory Statement, Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 2020 (No 2) (b) The remaining co-tenants demonstrated a clear understanding of their ongoing rights and obligations under the tenancy agreement. This included their responsibility to cover Mr Hovenden’s share of rent and utilities until a replacement co-tenant was found (or until the end of the lease), and their obligation at the end of the tenancy to leave the premises in substantially the same condition as shown in the 2022 report subject to fair wear and 39 tear. (c) Mr Hovenden’s reasons for leaving the tenancy were genuine, unavoidable and corroborated by supporting evidence. I was satisfied that he would continue to experience significant financial hardship if required to remain on the tenancy and pay rent for two properties. (d) By the end of the hearing, the lessor had agreed to add a new co-tenant to the residential tenancy agreement, pending completion of the required documentation. (e) Having regard to the above factors, I was comfortably satisfied that removing Mr Hovenden posed a minimal risk to the remaining co-tenants, and any risk to the lessor was significantly outweighed by the hardship likely to be experienced by Mr Hovenden if he was not removed.
Decision – compensation claim for refusing to add a new co-tenant No power to award compensation
The Tribunal is a creature of statute and can only exercise powers that are conferred on it by an authorising law.
The RT Act gives the ACAT power to determine certain types of disputes, and make certain orders, in relation to a residential tenancy agreement or occupancy agreement.
As mentioned, Part 3A of the RT Act sets out a process for a co-tenant to apply to the ACAT for an order to remove them from a tenancy agreement, or to add a new co-tenant.
39 See SRTT, s 64
The RT Act also prescribes circumstances in which the Tribunal may order a lessor to pay compensation to an aggrieved tenant. These include wrongful eviction, and where a tenant suffers loss arising from a lessor’s breach of the 40 tenancy agreement.
In this case, even if I were to determine that the lessor unreasonably withheld consent to add a new co-tenant, the Tribunal has no express power under the RT Act to award compensation where it ‘overturns’ the lessor’s decision.
Whilst the Tribunal can award compensation under section 83(1)(d) of the RT Act in respect of a lessor’s breach of the tenancy agreement, this is not available to Mr Hovenden because the lessor’s unreasonable refusal to add a co-tenant was not, by itself, a breach.
Mr Hovenden correctly identified that section 83(1)(m) contains a general power for the ACAT to make orders in relation to matters arising under the RT Act.
Section 83 relevantly provides: 83 Orders by ACAT (1) Without limiting the orders the ACAT may make, the ACAT may make the following orders in relation to an application about a tenancy dispute or occupancy dispute: … (m) any other order the ACAT considers appropriate including declaratory orders in relation to a matter in this Act.
The power to make ‘any other order’ must be read in the context of the RT Act as a whole, and orders made section 83(1)(m) must be necessary or incidental to matters within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the RT Act.
As discussed, the RT Act contains a detailed framework for adding and removing co-tenants, and confers specific powers on the Tribunal to resolve disputes about those matters. The RT Act also prescribes certain circumstances in which the Tribunal may require a lessor to pay compensation to a tenant. If the legislature intended the Tribunal to have power to award compensation for an unreasonable
40 RT Act, ss 58, 83(1)(d) refusal to add a co-tenant, then it could easily have included that provision. On that basis, I have respectfully declined to make a compensation order under section 83(1)(m).
Finally, Part 4 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, which establishes the Tribunal’s civil jurisdiction, does not include general power to award compensation in residential tenancy disputes independently of the RT Act.
I have therefore dismissed Mr Hovenden’s compensation claim because the Tribunal has no power to award compensation in these circumstances.
General comments - decision to refuse to add a co-tenant, and proposal to terminate the tenancy and/or require a 24-hour vacate period
My decision to dismiss Mr Hovenden’s compensation claim should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the lessor’s conduct.
On the contrary, the lessor’s reasoning was, in my view, generally unreasonable. Further, the managing agent’s proposal to ‘briefly’ terminate the tenancy to facilitate a 24 hour vacate period raises significant concern.
Having discussed this issue with the managing agent during the hearing, it appears there may be uncertainty in the industry about how to deal with these situations, in part because the provisions dealing with co-tenancies are relatively new. In that context, I will make some general observations that may assist in the future.
First, on a proper construction of section 35C, a lessor may be entitled to refuse consent to add a co-tenant where the name and details of the new person are not provided with the request.
The language and structure of section 35C expressly contemplate a particular person being proposed, rather than making a general request to add ‘somebody’ at some point in time. For example:
(a) If consent is given, or the requesting tenant applies to ACAT, “the new person” immediately becomes a party to the tenancy agreement without further steps needing to be taken. (b) If the lessor refuses consent, it must give written reasons to the existing person and “the new person” within 14 days.
(c) In considering the lessor’s reasons for refusing consent, the Tribunal must consider whether “the new person” is on a residential tenancy database and whether they will occupy the premises under their employment terms.
Also, from a practical perspective, it would be impossible for the lessor and other tenants to make an informed decision about the request without knowing who the proposed person is and whether they could pose a risk as a co-tenant.
In the present case, when Mr Hovenden asked the lessor for consent to add a co-tenant, he said he had found an ‘interested party’ to replace him if consent was given. However, the correspondence shows he did not provide that person’s details because the lessor immediately and repeatedly refused to consider the request before proper information could be given. This would have made it difficult for Mr Hovenden to obtain an ACAT order adding a new tenant, if he had pursued that remedy.
Although it is unnecessary for me to decide that issue, it raises a concern that lessors may be able to circumvent proper consideration of such requests, suggesting a possible gap in the legislative framework.
Second, whilst each case must be determined on its facts, a lessor’s refusal to add a co-tenant to a consecutive tenancy agreement simply because an updated condition report has not been prepared is unlikely to be reasonable unless there are genuine concerns about property condition or some other intervening factor exists.
The RT Act expressly recognises that incoming and outgoing condition reports may not be prepared between consecutive tenancies. Section 30AA establishes a clear process for determining the condition of premises at the end of the last consecutive tenancy where no subsequent condition report exists.
It is the lessor’s responsibility to arrange inspections and prepare condition reports during and between tenancies. Sections 77 and 78 of the Standard Residential Tenancy Terms (SRTT) authorise the lessor to conduct inspections 41 for that purpose.
In the present case, the lessor could have arranged an inspection and prepared an updated report before any change in co-tenants took effect. There was no suggestion that access had been refused or that there were concerns about the condition of the premises. Rather, it appears that the absence of subsequent condition reports was due to an oversight by the lessor and/or managing agents. In that situation, the lessor’s failure to plan should not become the tenants’ emergency.
Third, there was no evidence that the premises would have become overcrowded with a new co-tenant. Mr Hovenden advised the lessor that he had moved out of the apartment and was renting elsewhere. His room was vacant and available for a new tenant to move in at the earliest available opportunity. This would have weighed in favour of adding a co-tenant.
Fourth, the managing agent’s proposal to terminate the tenancy agreement and/or require the tenants to vacate the premises for 24 hours so it could conduct a ‘full’ inspection may have exposed the lessor to liability for breach of the tenancy agreement:
(a) The RT Act contains strict rules for terminating a residential tenancy agreement. Termination without cause during a fixed term tenancy agreement has been abolished in the ACT. A fixed term agreement may only be terminated for one of the prescribed reasons and only in accordance with the prescribed process. This includes giving written notice(s) within a specified period and containing certain information.
(b) It would be unlawful for a lessor to immediately terminate a tenancy agreement simply so it can conduct a routine inspection that it had failed to perform between consecutive tenancies. It is difficult to see how
41 The lessor can conduct two routine inspections every 12 months (s 77), and in the first and last month of each tenancy (s 78) termination on hardship grounds could be appropriate, other than in exceptional circumstances.
(c) It would also be unlawful for a lessor to require the tenants to vacate the premises and/or remove all belongings for 24 hours to allow an inspection to take place. A lessor must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenants in their use of the 42 43 premises and may only conduct inspections in certain circumstances.
(d) Any failure to comply with these requirements could constitute a breach of the tenancy agreement and may entitle the tenants to compensation for loss or damage they suffer as a result of the breach.
……………………………….. Senior Member E Morrison Date of hearing: 10 December 2025 First applicant: In person Second applicant: P Rawat, authorised representative Third applicant: P Rawat Respondent: K Wright and T Hathaway, Hayman Partners, in person, authorised representatives
42 SRTT, s 52 43 See SRTT, ss 77-82
HOVENDEN & ORS
EDWARDS (Residential Tenancies)