Marshall & Ors v Regal Waters Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] QCAT 289

• [1] Mr Marshall is the lead applicant of 54 applicants ('the Homeowners') who own and occupy manufactured homes located at a 231-site residential park, Regal Waters Bethania, at 16-34 Holzheimer Road, Bethania in the State of Queensland, owned by the respondent ('Regal Waters') since late 2018. The Homeowners rent their manufactured home site from Regal Waters for a fortnightly fee called site rent, for which they also have the right to access and use the common areas and communal facilities.
• [2] The communal facilities at Regal Waters Bethania include the clubhouse including kitchen, bar, gymnasium and meeting room, Queenslander building, lawn bowls green, small solar heated swimming pool and barbeque area, Village Green incorporating croquet lawn and adjoining building, woodworking shed, The Hub, caravan storage area, and car wash bay.
• [3] On 12 October 2022, Regal Waters issued Notices of General Increase in Site Rent to the Homeowners pursuant to their site agreements.
• [4] The Homeowners comprise four groups, each being subject to a different Consumer Price Index ('CPI') linked site rent increase method: 1) All Groups Brisbane CPI year end March 2022; 2) All Groups Brisbane CPI year end June 2022; 3) All Groups Brisbane CPI year end March 2022 plus increase in outgoings and operating expenses for the park; 4) All Groups Brisbane CPI year end June 2022 plus increase in outgoings and operating expenses for the park.
• [5] The All Groups Brisbane CPI year end March 2022 was 6.0% ('March CPI') and the All Groups Brisbane CPI year end June 2022 was 7.3% ('June CPI').
• [6] Among the Homeowners, the site rent increase amount varied between 1.39% and 6% and was effective and payable by the Homeowners from 16 November 2022.
• [7] In November 2022, the Homeowners commenced a dispute resolution process with Regal Waters, disputing the site rent increases on the grounds they are excessive. The parties' first attempt to resolve the dispute on 18 November 2022 was unsuccessful. In February 2023, the Homeowners applied to the Tribunal to have the dispute mediated, and mediation occurred on 10 March 2023. On 21 March 2023, a Certificate of Mediation Outcome was issued by the mediator indicating that the parties had not resolved their dispute. A further mediation in the form of a compulsory conference was conducted by a Tribunal Member on 29 January 2024 and was also unsuccessful.
• [8] On 10 May 2023, Mr Marshall applied on behalf of the Homeowners to have the dispute determined by the Tribunal.

• [9] The provisions of the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 (Qld) ('The Act') applicable at the time of the site rent increase relevantly provide that:[1]

(a) The site agreement must state the basis for working out the increase in site rent. Examples of bases given are a percentage of the site rent calculated by reference to the CPI number for a stated period or market review.

(b) Appropriate notice of the proposed site rent increase must be given, including the basis for increasing the site rent and how the increase has been worked out.

(c) The home owner may dispute the proposed site rent increase on the basis it is excessive by giving the park owner a dispute negotiation notice.

(d) The home owner may apply to the Tribunal for an order.

(e) The Tribunal may make an order:

(i) reducing the amount of the increase by a stated amount;

(ii) setting aside the increase;

(iii) confirming the increase with conditions;

(iv) the Tribunal considers appropriate.

(f) The Tribunal may have regard to:

(i) the range of site rents usually charged for comparable sites in comparable residential parks in the locality of the park;

(ii) if (i) is impractical or data is not available, or it is just and equitable to do so - the range of site rents usually charged for comparable sites in comparable residential parks in comparable localities to the locality of the park;

(iii) if both (i) and (ii) are impractical or data is not available, or it is just and equitable to do so - general trends in rent for residential accommodation in the locality of the park;

(iv) the increased site rent compared to the previous site rent;

(v) the frequency, and amount, of past increases in the site rent payable under the site agreement;

(vi) any increase in the CPI number during the previous site rent period;

(vii) the amenity or standard of the common areas and communal facilities;

(viii) any withdrawal of a communal facility or service previously provided at the park;

(ix) any addition of a communal facility or service not previously provided at the park;

(x) any increase in the park owner's operating costs for the park during the previous site rent period;

(xi) whether the increase is fair and equitable in all the circumstances of the case;

(xii) anything else the Tribunal considers relevant.

(xiii) If the site rent increase is set aside or reduced, the park owner must refund the difference to the home owner.

• [10] Further relevant provisions of the Act applicable at the time of the site rent increase provide that:

(a) The main object of the Act is to regulate and promote fair trading practices in the operation of residential parks to protect home owners.[2] Also important objects are encouraging the continued growth and viability of the residential park industry in the State.[3]

(b) The park owner has the responsibility to maintain the common areas[4] and communal facilities[5] in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, and fit for use by the home owner.[6]

(c) The park owner has the responsibility to ensure the times the park owner/manager is available to be contacted by the home owner are reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, including the utilities supplied by the park owner.[7]

• [11] The Explanatory Notes to the Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Bill 2003 (Qld) relevantly provided:

Home owners are generally on low and/or fixed incomes. They have invested substantial amounts of money in purchasing homes, often for retirement purposes, and need security of tenure for the siting of the home in a residential park at rent level commensurate with their capacity to pay. Many of these home owners have chosen this lifestyle to maintain their independence rather than seeking access to public housing. On the other hand, park owners have invested significant resources in both time and money in acquiring the land and developing their businesses. Different parks have different income and expenditure streams and park owners are not only seeking a return on their investment but also need to ensure the economic viability of their businesses. The Bill recognises these competing concerns and endeavours to provide certainty for both parties.

(a) The Homeowners are each a "home owner", Regal Waters is a "park owner", and Regal Waters Bethania is a "residential park" for the purposes of the Act.[8]

(b) This matter constitutes a "residential park dispute" for the purposes of the Act.[9]

(c) The mediation requirements of the Act[10] have been complied with and the Homeowners have made a valid application to the Tribunal to resolve the dispute.

(d) The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and make certain orders in relation to this dispute.

• [13] Mr Marshall has filed on behalf of the Homeowners the following material:

(a) Statement of evidence/submission filed 18 October 2023.

(b) Resident Satisfaction Survey dated September 2023 and summary of results.

(c) Maintenance Concerns Audit - November 2022 Snapshot presented to Regal Waters at the dispute negotiation meeting in November 2022.

(d) Extracts from the Australian Bureau of Statistics website (in relation to CPI), the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare website (in relation to housing affordability), and the Queensland Department of Communities, Housing and Digital Economy website (in relation to the results of the Manufactured homeowner survey conducted between 17 June and 15 August 2022).

(e) Unsigned and undated statements of evidence of Pia Newby, Stephen and Janet Hughson, Tom and Cathie Davis, and Val Kearns annexed to the statement of evidence/submission filed 18 October 2023.

(f) Statement of evidence/submission filed 13 December 2023.

(g) Department of Social Security Guides to Changes in Welfare Payment - March 2022 and September 2022.

(h) Australian Government Social Security Guide to Rental Assistance rates - June 1990 to present date (dated 6 November 2023).

(i) Discussion and Explanation of Ways of Increasing Site Rents based upon Increases in Costs (extracted from a Submission by the HOC of Nature's Edge Buderim Residential Park).

(j) Statement of evidence/submission filed 29 February 2024.

(k) Unsigned statement by Shelley Bagnall dated 15 February 2024, unsigned and undated statement by Carla Franklin, and unsigned statement by Pia Newby dated 13 February 2024 filed 29 February 2024.

(l) Resident Satisfaction Survey dated February 2024 and summary of results.

(m) Photographs of some areas of grass and pathways at Regal Waters Bethania dated February 2024.

(n) Photographs of some grass/garden areas at unnamed neighbouring parks and at Regal Waters Bethania dated February 2024.

(o) Statement of evidence by Christopher James Robinson filed 25 February 2024.

(p) Extract (overview) from Queensland Government Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement (relating to residential parks) dated May 2023.

(q) Statement of evidence/submission filed 2 May 2024.

(r) Post-hearing submissions filed 26 June 2025.

• [14] There is a deal of duplication of content in Mr Marshall's statements of evidence/submissions. In the following paragraphs, I summarise the Homeowners' central claims, related assertions, and orders sought.
• [15] The Homeowners' assert that the site rent increases proposed by Regal Waters in the notices dated 12 October 2022 are excessive, making three central claims:

(a) The increases are much greater than is needed by Regal Waters to cover the increases in the costs of operating the park since the previous increase.

(b) The increases are in the face of a significant deterioration in the levels of service and the maintenance of community facilities in the park.

(c) The increases are unfair and inequitable in that they have a significant impact on the financial and overall wellbeing of homeowners existing on fixed, low incomes.

• [16] Related to the Homeowners' central claims are the following assertions consistently made by Mr Marshall:

(a) The purpose of site rent increases is to cover increases in the park's operating expenses.

(b) The Homeowners entered into their site agreements satisfied that the rent was fair, balancing their interests with the former park owner's interests, however Regal Waters as the current park owner is attempting to shift that balance in its favour.

(c) Regal Waters is taking advantage of high levels of inflation to increase their profits at the expense of the Homeowners.

(d) Regal Waters is entitled to an adequate return on its investment, but not an increasing return derived from increasing site rents.

(e) CPI is not a suitable metric for calculating increases in site rent because it is a measure of the increase in the cost of items (such as household goods) that are not relevant to the cost of operating a residential park.

(f) CPI is only an example given in the Act of a basis for calculating site rent increases, not a recommendation.

(g) CPI is an overestimate of the amount required to cover increases in the park's operating costs.

(h) The consequence of using the All Groups Brisbane CPI metric is that site rents are increasing at a higher rate than the pension.

(i) Site rent increases are pushing the Homeowners into housing stress where more than 30% of their gross income is spent on housing costs, noting that site rent is only one component of overall housing costs.

(j) Services may not have been withdrawn, per the wording of section 70(5)(h) of the Act, however they are not as comprehensive, or their quality has declined. Mr Marshall relies on the high levels of dissatisfaction expressed by respondents to the Resident Satisfaction Surveys dated September 2023 and February 2024. Mr Marshall refers to photographs he claims evidence poor upkeep of the park, and cites the following specific examples:

(i) The change from husband-and-wife managers to a single manager.

(ii) The change from a full-time onsite manager to a manager only onsite during business hours.

(iii) The decrease in hours the community office is open to Homeowners.

(iv) For most of 2022, there was only one groundsman; and then when two were engaged, only one was onsite.

(v) The failure to have cover for groundsmen when on leave.

(vi) The failure to provide a reliable TV signal to homes.

(vii) Discontinuing the Homeowners' phone book.

(viii) Disallowing the option for the Homeowners to leave spare keys to their home at the community office.

(k) Since the increases in site rent, there have been no improved services or maintenance; rather, they have declined.

• [17] Mr Marshall has sought the following orders at various stages of this matter:

(a) In his statement of evidence/submission filed 18 October 2023: set the proposed site rent increases aside or order lower increases more closely reflecting the actual costs of operating the park in the 12 months prior.

(b) In his statement of evidence/submission filed 13 December 2023: no increase in the site rent from the general increase date of 12 November 2022, or the increase be set no higher than a level equivalent to a reasonable estimate of the increase in costs of operating a park like Regal Waters in the period up to the general increase date.

(c) In his statement of evidence/submission filed 29 February 2024 and 5 May 2024: set the proposed site rent increases aside, or order increases set at or close to 3.2% (per Mr Robinson's statement of evidence).

(d) At hearing: set aside site rental increases, or order lower increases in the range of 3.2% to 3.5%.

• [18] Regal Waters has filed the following material:

(a) Statement of evidence of Jamie Brown filed 14 November 2023.

(b) Table of the 2022 site rent increases for each site.

(c) BDR Stanaway of John Watt & Associates Assessment of Site Rental, Regal Waters Bethania, dated 8 October 2021.

(d) Table of the 2020 and 2021 site rent increases for each site.

(e) Photographs of the park's common areas and communal facilities dated October 2022 and September to November 2023.

(f) Statement of evidence of Leeanne Grobler filed 14 November 2023 regarding (inter alia) her role as the park's community manager from late October 2022, handover notes from the previous community manager detailing outstanding repair and maintenance items for the park, and a meeting attended by Mr Marshall and some of the Homeowners on 18 November 2022 in which Ms Grobler addressed each of the items and agreed to Regal Waters contributing to an acoustic ceiling in the clubhouse.

(g) Statement of evidence of Jamie Brown filed 14 November 2023 confirming Ms Grobler's account of the meeting.

(h) Statement of evidence of Jamie Brown filed 4 April 2025.

(i) Post-hearing submissions filed 2 June 2025.

• [19] Regal Waters rejects the Homeowners' central claims and related assertions and evidence and seeks orders that the application be dismissed.
• [20] Regal Waters' assertions are summarised as follows:

(a) In recognition of the March CPI and June CPI amounts, Regal Waters elected to exclude the proportionate increase in the park's operating costs applicable to groups 3 and 4. As a result, all Homeowners fall within either group 1 or group 2.

(b) In a further attempt to minimise the impact of the new site rent payable, Regal Waters capped the new site rent amount at $365.00 per fortnight resulting in a revised increase in site rent lower than the March CPI and June CPI for 27 of the 54 Homeowners.

(c) The continued growth and viability of a park is not limited to simply recovering costs.

(d) Mr Robinson is a home owner in a Queensland residential park, has actively participated in the reform of the Act, has an interest in the outcome of the matters in dispute, and is therefore not an independent expert.

(e) Addressing the considerations set out in section 70(5) of the Act to which the Tribunal may have regard:

(i) Subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c): these provisions suggest the considerations apply only to instances of market review of site rent and are therefore not relevant to the current matter where CPI is the basis of the review. If comparable rents are considered relevant, reference is made to the conclusions of the John Watt & Associates Assessment of Site Rental dated 8 October 2021.

(ii) Subparagraph (d): reference is made to the tables of previous and increased site rents for each site.

(iii) Subparagraph (e): past site rent increases have occurred annually according to the CPI or market review provisions in the site agreements. The 2021 market review was negotiated by agreement between the parties resulting in a lower site rent increase than would otherwise have been payable under the relevant site agreements.

(iv) Subparagraph (f): the March CPI increased 6.0% and the June CPI increased 7.3%.

(v) Subparagraph (g): referencing photographs, the common areas and communal facilities are maintained in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair and fit for use by the Homeowners. Regal Waters rejects the Resident Satisfaction Surveys on the basis they were conducted outside the period relevant to the site rent review and after these proceedings were commenced, which may have influenced the results.

(vi) Subparagraph (h): Regal Waters rejects that any services have been withdrawn during the period relevant to the site rent review, rejects that Mr Marshall's cited examples constitute a withdrawal of service, and asserts there is no obligation for Regal Waters to provide these offerings. In relation to the phone book and spare key arrangements, Regal Waters considered these ill-advised for the protection of the Homeowners' privacy and security, however noted the Homeowners are free to come to these arrangements privately if they wish.

(vii) Subparagraph (i): there were no additions made to the park during the relevant period, however following flood damage, Regal Waters installed new flooring to the gym and meeting room, which improved the overall functionality and aesthetics of the lower level communal facilities.

(viii) Subparagraph (j): Regal Waters elected not to rely on the apportionment of the increase in the park's operating costs in calculating the site rent increase.

(ix) Subparagraph (k): past site rent increases were calculated in accordance with the method set out in each of the site agreements, either CPI or market review. The parties agreed to the method at the time they entered into the site agreement. The CPI fluctuates from year to year; the Homeowners have had the benefit of minimal site rent increases when the CPI change has been low. Regal Waters rejects that the CPI is not a suitable metric given its recognition in the Act.

(x) Subparagraph (l): while not directly applicable to private residential parks, clauses 5.1 and 7.1 of the Queensland Government Community Housing Rent Policy provide that low to moderate income households will pay rent up to 30% of the gross household income, and Commonwealth Rent Assistance ('CRA') is not considered income when determining the 30% housing stress test. The calculation involves deducting the CRA amount from the site rent amount, then determining the percentage the reduced rent amount represents of the pension amount. Regal Waters' calculations show the Homeowners' percentage of pension income spent on site rent as ranging from 11.55% to 16.43%.

• [21] The Homeowners do not contest the validity of the Notices of General Increase in Site Rent relevant to this dispute.
• [22] I find the Notices of General Increase in Site Rent relevant to this dispute are valid and given by Regal Waters to the Homeowners in accordance with the Act.[11]
• [23] The question for the Tribunal to determine is whether the amount of the proposed increases in site rent stated in the Notices of General Increase in Site Rent relevant to this dispute is excessive ('the excessive increase question').
• [24] In determining the excessive increase question, I am afforded the discretion to have regard to the considerations set out in section 70(5) of the Act. Before addressing these considerations, I will address the Homeowners' three central claims and related assertions and evidence. To some extent, the issues and arguments overlap.
• [25] The Homeowners' first claim in relation to the excessive increase question is that the increases are much greater than is needed by Regal Waters to cover the increase in the costs of operating the park since the previous increase.
• [26] It is clear from Regal Waters' evidence that the methods used to calculate the proposed increases in site rent for the relevant period were limited to those methods applicable only to groups 1 and 2, being increases calculated by reference to the March CPI and the June CPI. In doing so, Regal Waters, having regard to the quantum, made the decision for the relevant period to exclude from the calculations the proportionate increase in the park's operating costs, which was otherwise a recognised inclusion in the calculation methods for groups 3 and 4. I accept this evidence, and there is no evidence that the Homeowners dispute that these were the methods used to calculate the proposed site rent increases for the relevant period.
• [27] The Homeowners assert the purpose of site rent increases is to cover increases in the park's operating costs. There is however no legislative or common law foundation for this assertion. As noted, an important stated object of the Act is encouraging the continued growth and viability of the residential park industry in the State, and the explanatory notes to the Bill acknowledge that park owners not only seek a return on investment but need to ensure the viability of their business. Further, section 70(5) itself acknowledges that site rent increases are influenced by a range of factors, all of which may be relevant in determining whether they are excessive.
• [28] The Act requires that a park owner must ensure the site agreement states the basis for working out the amount of an increase in the site rent.[12] I am satisfied on the evidence the relevant site agreements set out the CPI-linked methods of calculation as previously described, and the Homeowners were aware of and agreed to these methods at and from the time of entering into their site agreements.
• [29] The methods used by Regal Waters to calculate the proposed increases in site rent for the relevant period did not incorporate or reference any increase in the park's operating costs, nor is there any evidence before the Tribunal of any increase in the park's operating costs for the relevant period.
• [30] I consider the Homeowners' claim that the proposed increases in site rent are excessive because they are much greater than the increase in the park's operating costs for the relevant period disregards the agreed and actual basis on which the increases were calculated and is otherwise not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, I reject the claim.
• [31] More broadly, the Homeowners assert that the CPI is not a suitable metric for calculating increases in site rent because it is a measure of the increase in the cost of items (such as household goods) that are not relevant to the cost of operating a residential park.
• [32] In support of this assertion, the Homeowners have submitted the following evidence:

(a) Discussion and Explanation of Ways of Increasing Site Rents based upon Increases in Costs (extracted from a Submission by the HOC of Nature's Edge Buderim Residential Park) ('Nature's Edge submission').

(b) Statement of evidence by Christopher James Robinson filed 25 February 2024 ('Robinson statement').

• [33] The Nature's Edge submission canvasses alternative options to the use of the CPI as a basis for making annual site rent increases, namely actual increases in site operating costs and a mandated cap. It appears to be a submission to or for consideration by government and is not expressed to be specifically related to Regal Waters Bethania.
• [34] The Robinson statement is expressed to specifically relate to the site rent increases the subject of this dispute, and states that it will consider what is a fair basis for increasing site rents annually and whether the use of the CPI as the basis for increasing annual site rents in October 2022 is fair or excessive.
• [35] The Act, as applicable for the relevant period, does not specify or prohibit any basis for working out the amount of an increase in the site rent. The Act does however include "a percentage of the site rent worked out by reference to the CPI number for a stated period" as an example of a basis for increasing site rent that may be stated in a site agreement.
• [36] The Act does not confer any power on the Tribunal to determine the appropriateness, according to any measure, of the basis for calculating increases in site rent. The Tribunal's power is limited to determining whether the amount of a proposed increase in site rent is excessive.
• [37] I consider that the Nature's Edge submission and the Robinson statement are not relevant to the Tribunal's determination of this dispute, and I give them no weight.
• [38] The Homeowners' second claim in relation to the excessive increase question is that the increases are in the face of a significant deterioration in the levels of service and the maintenance of community facilities in the park.
• [39] In support of this claim, the Homeowners have submitted the following evidence:

(a) Resident Satisfaction Survey dated September 2023 and summary of results.

(b) Maintenance Concerns Audit - November 2022 Snapshot presented to Regal Waters at the dispute negotiation meeting in November 2022.

(c) Unsigned and undated statements by Pia Newby, Stephen and Janet Hughson, Tom and Cathie Davis, and Val Kearns annexed to the statement of evidence/submission filed 18 October 2023.

(d) Resident Satisfaction Survey dated February 2024 and summary of results.

(e) Photographs of some areas of grass and pathways at Regal Waters Bethania dated February 2024.

(f) Photographs of some grass/garden areas at unnamed neighbouring parks and at Regal Waters Bethania dated February 2024.

(g) Unsigned statement by Shelley Bagnall dated 15 February 2024, unsigned and undated statement by Carla Franklin, and unsigned statement by Pia Newby dated 13 February 2024 filed 29 February 2024.

• [40] In defence of the claim, Regal Waters has submitted the following evidence:

(a) Photographs of the park's common areas and communal facilities dated October 2022 and September to November 2023.

(b) Statement of evidence of Leeanne Grobler filed 14 November 2023 regarding (inter alia) her role as the park's community manager from late October 2022, handover notes from the previous community manager detailing outstanding repair and maintenance items for the park, and a meeting attended by Mr Marshall and some of the Homeowners on 18 November 2022 in which Ms Grobler addressed each of the items and agreed to Regal Waters contributing to an acoustic ceiling in the clubhouse.

(c) Statement of evidence of Jamie Brown filed 14 November 2023 confirming Ms Grobler's account of the meeting.

(d) BDR Stanaway of John Watt & Associates Assessment of Site Rental, Regal Waters Bethania, dated 8 October 2021 ('John Watt & Associates assessment of site rental').

• [41] This claim most closely relates to the consideration set out in subparagraph (g) of section 70(5) of the Act, being the amenity or standard of the common areas and communal facilities.
• [42] The park owner has the responsibility to maintain the common areas and communal facilities in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair and fit for use by the home owner.[13]
• [43] The Homeowners bear the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that Regal Waters has not discharged this responsibility.
• [44] I note the results of the Resident Satisfaction Surveys conducted in September 2023 and February 2024 post-date the period the subject of the site rent increase. As such, I do not consider the results are relevant to the amenity or standard of the common areas and communal facilities for that period or to the question of whether Regal Waters discharged its statutory responsibility for that period. I also note the survey results post-date the Homeowners' application to the Tribunal. I consider it is reasonable to conclude it is likely the survey respondents provided their responses in the full knowledge and expectation the responses would be submitted in support of the Homeowners' claims, which, if successful, they would stand to benefit from. As such, I do not consider the survey results independent and reliable, and I give them no weight.
• [45] As noted, the unsigned and undated statements by Pia Newby, Stephen and Janet Hughson, Tom and Cathie Davis, and Val Kearns were annexed to the statement of evidence/submission filed 18 October 2023. These individuals are listed among the Homeowners in this proceeding. They were not called to give evidence at hearing, and, as such, there was no opportunity to verify or interrogate the contents of their statements. Accordingly, I give them no weight.
• [46] As noted, the unsigned statement by Shelley Bagnall dated 15 February 2024, unsigned and undated statement by Carla Franklin, and unsigned statement by Pia Newby dated 13 February 2024 were filed 29 February 2024. These individuals are listed among the Homeowners in this proceeding. They were not called to give evidence at hearing, and, as such, there was no opportunity to verify or interrogate the contents of their statements. Accordingly, I give them no weight.
• [47] I note the photographs dated February 2024 post-date the period the subject of the site rent increase. As such, I do not consider the photographs are relevant to the amenity or standard of the common areas and communal facilities for that period or to the question of whether Regal Waters discharged its statutory responsibility for that period. Accordingly, I give them no weight.
• [48] The Homeowners claim the Maintenance Concerns Audit was tabled at the dispute negotiation meeting with Regal Waters in November 2022 to highlight outstanding items of repairs and maintenance. Ms Grobler claims in her statement evidence, supported by Mr Brown's statement evidence, that she addressed multiple outstanding items of repairs and maintenance with the Homeowners at the same meeting. Mr Marshall elected not to cross-examine Ms Grobler at hearing. I consider there is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the items of repairs and maintenance were not addressed by Regal Waters in accordance with its statutory responsibility.
• [49] I note the John Watt & Associates assessment of site rental dated 8 October 2021 observes that Regal Waters Bethania, as at the date of inspection (13 September 2021), is overall reasonably presented and reflecting the age of the facility and attaches a range of photographs by way of demonstration. The inspection and assessment were undertaken around a year prior to the issue of the notices of proposed increases in site rent to the Homeowners and therefore pre-date the relevant period. I consider the inspection and assessment were carried out by a suitably qualified and independent professional and on that basis, the document has considerable probative value. In relation to the specific observation, while out of time, I am nevertheless inclined to give it some weight as to the likely condition of the park at the later relevant time.
• [50] I accept the photographs submitted by Regal Waters dated October 2022 relate to the period the subject of the site rent review. I consider however that the photographs are indicative only of a single point in time and do not inform the position over the relevant period, and I give them no weight.

• [51] I consider the Homeowners' claim that the proposed increases in site rent are excessive because the increases are in the face of a significant deterioration in the levels of service and the maintenance of community facilities in the park is not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, I reject the claim.
• [52] The Homeowners' third claim in relation to the excessive increase question is that the increases are unfair and inequitable in that they have a significant impact on the financial and overall wellbeing of homeowners existing on fixed, low incomes.
• [53] Central to this claim is the Homeowners' assertion that the site rent increases cause the Homeowners to go into housing stress.
• [54] The Australian Bureau of Statistics and other Commonwealth and State agencies apply a common threshold of housing affordability, being the proportion of households spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The 30% housing costs threshold is commonly applied to those households whose disposable household income falls in the bottom 40% of Australia's income distribution, referred to as lower income households. This is commonly referred to as the '30/40 rule' of housing affordability, and where the threshold is exceeded, lower income households are sometimes referred to as being in 'housing stress'.[14]
• [55] The parties adopt the housing stress definition in their material, acknowledging that it is a relevant measure in the context of examining the affordability of site rents for the Homeowners, though Regal Waters asserts that it is not directly applicable to private residential parks. The main point of contention between the parties is how the 30% calculation is made.
• [56] As noted, Mr Brown in his statement of evidence filed 14 November 2023 (at paragraph 27), referencing the Queensland Government Community Housing Rent Policy, states that CRA is not considered income when determining the 30% housing stress test. Regal Waters argues that the correct method of calculation is to deduct the CRA amount from the site rent amount before calculating the rent/(pension) income percentage. On the other hand, the Homeowners argue that the CRA amount should be added to the (pension) income amount.
• [57] This point was raised again at hearing by Ms Toussaint on behalf of Regal Waters in her closing submissions, during which she indicated they had prepared calculations for each of the sites demonstrating a range of 11.55% to 16.43% for the Homeowners' percentage of pension income spent on site rent. Given the calculations had not previously been filed or shared with the Homeowners, I made directions permitting Regal Waters to file post-hearing submissions (including the calculations) by 30 May 2025, and, after receiving a request from Mr Marshall for a time indulgence due to his forthcoming hospital stay, permitting the Homeowners to file submissions in reply by 27 June 2025. The parties filed submissions in accordance with these directions.
• [58] Mr Marshall in his post-hearing submissions objects to the introduction of the new evidence, being the calculations, calling it misleading, and expresses a concern that the Homeowners may have been disadvantaged.
• [59] I consider that while the calculations had not previously been seen by the Homeowners or the Tribunal, they were based on a method of calculation asserted in Regal Waters' early material (Mr Brown's statement of evidence filed 14 November 2023) and using pension and CRA amounts long-known to the Homeowners. I reject Mr Marshall's assertion that the calculations are misleading; on the contrary, they simply serve to illustrate Regal Waters' point to the Homeowners and the Tribunal. The fact that Mr Marshall does not agree with Regal Waters' method of calculation does not make the calculations misleading. Further, I reject Mr Marshall's assertion that the Homeowners have been disadvantaged by the introduction of the calculations when the method of calculation and amounts used have been long known to them, and they were given ample time to file submissions in reply.
• [60] Returning now to the question of the correct method of calculation for the 30% housing stress test. Central to this question is whether CRA is categorised as income or something other than income.
• [61] Regal Waters references the Queensland Government Community Housing Rent Policy. The document outlines the policy to be implemented by registered housing providers funded by the Queensland Government to deliver social housing. Relevantly:

(a) Clause 4.2 includes links to definitions of assessable and non-assessable income. CRA is not listed as assessable income for the purposes of determining rent payable by social housing tenants.

(b) Clause 5.1 provides that a social housing tenant will have their rent assessed at 25% of the household's assessable income, plus the CRA to which all household members are entitled. The clause notes that CRA is not considered income and therefore is not assessed at 25%; instead, the total CRA for the household is added to the rent assessment.

(c) Clause 7.1 sets out the rent assessment requirements for affordable housing providers under the Affordable Housing Program. Rent payable by tenants must be set at no more than 30% of gross household income, plus the CRA to which the tenant is entitled.

• [62] While the Homeowners do not agree with Regal Waters' interpretation of the policy or its reasoning in adopting the method of calculation, they have not provided any credible evidence to support their alternative method of calculation. At paragraph 7 of Mr Marshall's post-hearing submissions, he relies on "...the Google AI response to the question 'Is rent assistance part of income in assessing housing stress?'". I do not consider that unverified, unattributed and untested statements generated by Google's artificial intelligence applications have any probative value in the context of this proceeding. According, I give them no weight.
• [63] I accept Regal Waters' method of calculation for the 30% housing stress test. The site calculations produced percentages in the range of 11.55% to 16.43% for the Homeowners' percentage of pension income spent on site rent, which are well under the stress test threshold.
• [64] The Homeowners have not provided any credible evidence to support a finding that the Homeowners are in housing stress.
• [65] I consider the Homeowners' claim that the proposed increases in site rent are excessive because the increases are unfair and inequitable in that they have a significant impact on the financial and overall wellbeing of homeowners existing on fixed, low incomes is not supported by the evidence. Accordingly, I reject the claim.
• [66] Turning now to the considerations set out in section 70(5) of the Act. The section provides that the Tribunal may have regard to these considerations in deciding the application.

(a) the range of site rents usually charged for comparable sites in comparable residential parks in the locality of the park;

(b) if it is impractical to obtain data for the range of site rents mentioned in paragraph (a), data is not available for that range or it is just and equitable to do so in the particular circumstances - the range of site rents usually charged for comparable sites in comparable residential parks in comparable localities to the locality the park is in;

(c) if it is impractical to obtain data for the range of site rents mentioned in paragraph (a), data is not available for that range or it is just and equitable to do so in the particular circumstances - general trends in rent for residential accommodation in the locality the park is in.

• [67] It is not clear whether these are relevant considerations in circumstances where, as in this dispute, the method of calculating proposed increases in site rent is by reference to the CPI, rather than by way of market review. As noted by Regal Waters in its material, these considerations are suggestive of market review.
• [68] If there were no evidence before the Tribunal to inform these considerations, I would need to decide what weight to give the lack of evidence. That is not the case however as there is before the Tribunal the John Watt & Associates assessment of site rental dated 8 October 2021. I have said already that I consider the inspection and assessment were carried out by a suitably qualified and independent professional and on that basis, the document has considerable probative value. I maintain this view in the context of these considerations, notwithstanding the assessment pre-dates the notices of proposed increases in site rent by around a year.
• [69] I consider the market review assessment provides a comprehensive analysis of Regal Waters Bethania and comparative analysis of other comparable residential park accommodation. Market rental for a typical site at Regal Waters Bethania was assessed at $180 per week plus water and $185 per week including water, which if expressed as fortnightly figures would be $360 and $370 respectively. I consider this assessment a persuasive baseline and indicator of market rental values for the period 12 months hence. The Homeowners have not provided any credible evidence to counter the assessment.
• [70] For the relevant period, Regal Waters capped the site rent at $365 per fortnight (the top end of a range starting at $313.55 per fortnight). For the purposes of these considerations, I note these figures are within or below the range of the assessment conducted 12 months prior. Accordingly, I do not consider these figures are reflective of excessive increases in site rent for the relevant period.

(d) the increased site rent compared to the previous site rent

• [71] Regal Waters states in its material, and I accept, that in September 2022, the CRA and pension increased by 6.1%. I have already accepted Regal Waters' method of calculation for the 30% housing stress test. Accordingly, I accept that it is an appropriate calculation for each site to deduct the CRA increase from the site rent increase, resulting in a range of site rent increases from $4.04 to $12.99 per fortnight.

(e) the frequency, and amount, of past increases in the site rent payable under the agreement

• [72] Regal Waters states in its material, and I accept, that the past site rent increases have occurred annually in accordance with the CPI or market review provisions (as applicable) contained in the site agreements, other than in 2021 when the market rent review was negotiated by agreement between the parties and resulted in a lower site rent increase than would otherwise have been payable under the relevant site agreements. It is noteworthy that the site rent that would otherwise have been payable in 2021 for those sites subject to market rent review was $365 per fortnight, the same capped site rent figure payable for 2022 and the subject of this dispute.
• [73] Regal Waters has produced a table, which I accept, setting out the site rent increases (CPI and market linked) across all sites over the three years, 2020 to 2022. Relevantly:

(a) The March CPI increase for 2020 was 1.8%. The site rent increases across all sites ranged from nil to 1.8%.

(b) The March CPI increase for 2021 was 1.7%. The site rent increases across all sites ranged from 1.7% to 6.11%.

(c) There were no increases in the June CPI for both years. The site rent increases across all sites for 2020 were nil. The site rent increases across all sites for 2021 ranged from 5.48% to 5.53%.

(d) The March CPI increase for 2022 was 6%. The site rent increases across all sites ranged from 1.39% to 6%.

(e) The June CPI increase for 2022 was 7.30%. The site rent increases across all sites ranged from 1.39% to 6.35%.

(f) The average site rent increase over the three years across all sites ranged from 1.39% to 4.64%.

• [74] There is no credible evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the increases for the relevant period are excessive. I consider the three-year overview demonstrates, unsurprisingly, that site rent, whether linked to the CPI or market, fluctuates over time depending on the factors intrinsic to these review mechanisms, resulting in site rent increases that are more favourable to home owners in some years than others, but average out over time.

(f) any increase in the CPI number during the previous site rent period

• [75] I have considered this issue in paragraphs [71] to [74].

(g) the amenity or standard of the common areas and communal facilities

• [76] I have considered this issue in paragraphs [38] to [51].

(h) any withdrawal of a communal facility or service previously provided at the park

• [77] As I have already noted, Mr Marshall concedes the following services may not have been withdrawn, per the wording of section 70(5)(h) of the Act, however asserts they are not as comprehensive, or their quality has declined:

(i) The change from husband-and-wife managers to a single manager.

(ii) The change from a full-time onsite manager to a manager only onsite during business hours.

(iii) The decrease in hours the community office is open to Homeowners.

(iv) For most of 2022, there was only one groundsman; and then when two were engaged, only one was onsite.

(v) The failure to have cover for groundsmen when on leave.

(vi) The failure to provide a reliable TV signal to homes.

(vii) Discontinuing the Homeowners' phone book.

(viii) Disallowing the option for the Homeowners to leave spare house keys to at the community office.

• [78] I note there is no definition of "facility" or "service" in the Act.
• [79] Regal Waters is responsible for maintaining the common areas and communal facilities in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair and fit for use by the Homeowners, and ensuring the times the manager is available to be contacted by the Homeowners are reasonable. I accept on the evidence that Regal Waters provides on-site management during certain hours, a community office accessible by the Homeowners during certain hours and contactable outside those hours by appointment, and garden and grounds maintenance. I do not consider that items (i) to (v) above constitute a withdrawal of service; rather, they are the consequence of decisions made by Regal Waters in order to best discharge its responsibilities as park owner while ensuring the viability of the park and its business.
• [80] In relation to item (vi) above, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that Regal Waters is responsible for providing a reliable TV signal to homes in the park. I therefore do not consider it a service. Regal Waters has stated in its material that the Homeowners are free to make their own arrangements to secure a reliable TV signal to their homes if they wish.
• [81] In relation to items (vii) and (viii) above, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that Regal Waters is responsible for providing a Homeowners' phone book or the option for the Homeowners to leave spare house keys at the community office. I therefore do not consider these services. They were simply arrangements previously in place for the convenience of the Homeowners, which Regal Waters determined were no longer in the Homeowners' best interests. Again, Regal Waters has stated in its material that the Homeowners are free to make their own arrangements in relation to the storage of spare house keys if they wish.

(i) any addition of a communal facility or service not previously provided at the park

• [82] I do not consider that the new flooring installed in the lower level of the clubhouse following flood damage constitutes an addition of a communal facility.
• [83] There is no other evidence before the Tribunal of any addition of a communal facility or service not previously provided at Regal Waters Bethania.

(j) any increase in the park owner's operating costs for the park during the previous site rent period

• [84] I have considered this issue in paragraphs [25] to [30].
• [85] There is no evidence before the Tribunal of Regal Waters' operating costs for Regal Waters Bethania during the previous site rent period.

(k) whether the increase is fair and equitable in all the circumstances of the case

• [86] I have considered the parties' evidence and arguments, and for the reasons already given, I consider the increases in site rent for the relevant period fair and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.

(l) anything else the Tribunal considers relevant

• [87] I consider that site rent affordability is a relevant consideration in the circumstances of the case.
• [88] I have considered the affordability issue in paragraphs [52] to [65].
• [89] I note that Mr Marshall in his statement of evidence/submission dated 29 February 2024 sought an order, in the alternative to a set aside order, that the increases for the relevant period be set at or close to 3.2%, relying on the Robinson statement. For the reasons already given, I have determined that I give the Robinson statement no weight.
• [90] I note that Mr Marshall in his oral evidence at hearing sought an order, in the alternative to a set aside order, that the increases for the relevant period be in the range of 3.2% to 3.5%, however he provided no evidence to substantiate this range.
• [91] I find the site rent increases for the relevant period are not excessive and will order that the application is dismissed, and site rent increases are confirmed.
• [92] Mr Marshall in his post-hearing submissions queries Ms Toussaint's appearance at hearing on behalf of Regal Waters. I note Mr Marshall was appointed by the Homeowners as the lead applicant in this proceeding and as their representative and advocate at hearing. I consider Regal Waters is also entitled to appoint one of its staff, namely Ms Toussaint, as its representative and advocate at hearing.
• [93] Mr Marshall in his post-hearing submissions also queries Regal Waters' post-hearing submissions being signed as Regal Waters Holdings Pty Ltd, and not by Mr Brown on the company's behalf. This goes to the material difference between a statement of evidence and submissions. A statement of evidence is, as the name suggests, written evidence of a party or witness regarding the factual matters in dispute, or written evidence of an expert witness with specialised knowledge in a particular field, offered to assist the Tribunal in its determinations. In this proceeding, Mr Brown was Regal Waters' key witness and the author of the filed statements of evidence, in respect of which he was cross-examined by Mr Marshall at hearing. Submissions, on the other hand, are not evidence; rather, they are a summary of a party's case and arguments, the facts the party asserts the tribunal ought to be persuaded to accept, and the application of the relevant law to those facts. It is appropriate therefore that the post-hearing submissions were submitted by the respondent party, Regal Waters.

[14] Australian Bureau of Statistics, 'Housing', Survey of Income and Housing, User Guide, Australia 2019-20 Financial Year (Web Page, 28 April 2022) .