1. Ms Moustafa-Cook first noticed issues with mouldy blinds, damp carpet in the bedroom, and rotting window frames and skirting boards on or around 10 September 2024. She notified the rental provider of these issues on or around 18 October 2024 and the rental provider's agent wrote back to her six days later to say that they would inspect the premises. The rental provider's agent attended the premises on 1 November 2024 and gave evidence that she found no visible mould nor water leak. Nonetheless, Ms Lionetti engaged, through her agents, a plumber to attend the premises on 24 November 2024. No significant water leaks were identified at that time.
2. However, Choices Flooring attended the premises on 26 November 2024 and reported to the rental provider significant water issues causing the carpets to become wet and damp in places.
3. The water ingress issues in the bedroom became so serious that the renter removed her belongings from the bedroom and slept in the living room of the premises from around 5 December 2024 to the conclusion of the tenancy.
4. A further report was obtained from Free Flow Solutions, which indicated minimal significant issues with water ingress, but some works were recommended in relation to the hot water system to mitigate further corrosion and address isolation valve concerns, and to liaise with the body corporate to address stormwater system issues.
5. While the rental provided contested throughout the existence of mould or water ingress at the rented premises, I am satisfied on the basis of the photographic evidence of blinds during the tenancy and the Choices Flooring report that there was significant water ingress in the bedroom of the rented premises.
6. A breach of a rental provider's duty to maintain premises in good repair, whilst the duty is an absolute one, will depend on the circumstances of each case and is to be judged by reference to what a reasonable landlord would do in the circumstances Ms Lionetti found herself in. This requires consideration of when Ms Lionetti became aware of the issues at the rented premises and requires some temporal allowance for her to undertake appropriate steps to remedy any issues.
7. In this case, Ms Lionetti took reasonable steps by way of inspecting the premises on around 1 November 2024, being within a week of becoming aware of the water ingress issues, and engaging a plumber during the same week as becoming aware of the water ingress issues. There was, however, some delay in having a plumber attend the rented premises, which ultimately occurred on 24 November 2024.
8. Matters escalated further when, Choices Flooring attended the rented premises to provide a quotation for flooring upgrades and notified the rental provider's agent that there was a significant moisture issue causing the carpet to become wet on 29 November 2024. The email sent from Matthew Doyle to the rental provider's agent observed that the renter was unable to use the bedroom owing to this issue and had purchased a dehumidifier which was filling daily. He observed that this was unusual in Melbourne and opined that the rental provider should engage a plumber to attend and investigate as soon as possible.
9. While being on notice from this date of the serious issues with water ingress at the rented premises, very little meaningful was done to undertake the repairs requested. The residential rental provider engaged Free Flow Solutions to inspect the premises on 5 December 2024, but made no request to obtain the report for some time, despite the renter's repeated requests to be furnished a copy.

1. In relation to the pest infestation issues, the renter had concerns about mouse droppings in the kitchen cabinetry and being bitten at night by some insects at the premises. She claims that she first noticed the issue on 15 November 2024 and sent an email to the rental provider on the same day about, what she termed, a 'mouse mite infestation'.
2. While there was limited evidence of mice infestation, the renter undertook cleaning and repairs and sought reimbursement of $191.55 from the rental provider for these activities. She did not, however, give the rental provider an opportunity to undertake her own repairs or maintenance activities at that time, being a matter to which I give weight. On 21 November 2024, the renter asked for the carpet to be removed, but given what subsequently came out in evidence, removal of the carpet would have had no impact on the insects that were complained of.
3. The rental provider instead, and I find quite reasonably, responded on the same day indicating that she would engage a pest controller to first visit the premises and undertake an inspection. A pest controller then attended the premises on 22 November 2024, being within a week of the complaint first being made. A report of the service call was included on the Tax Invoice from Pest Control Empire dated 22 November 2024 and noted:

SERVICE CALL The tenant reported experiencing bites from an unseen source after moving into the apartment. She showed visible marks on her stomach and breast area. She mentioned that the previous tenant had pets and the carpets were not steam cleaned, suggesting the possibility of fleas. Additionally, she found mouse droppings, which she has since cleaned up. The tenant was informed that mice can carry mites that feed on mouse blood, and in the absence of mice, these mites may feed on human blood.

During our thorough inspection, we found no evidence of rodent activity, although the tenant provided photos of what appeared to be mouse droppings. We also found no evidence of fleas. Mites are barely visible to the human eye and hide in cracks and crevices, making them difficult to detect. Without the presence of mice, it is unlikely that any mites would survive.

1. The report then went on to detail steps taken to control any potential rodent infestation by blocking entry points and applying rodenticide products, and to address any potential insect infestation by applying insecticides.
2. The renter then wrote again to the rental provider's agent, some three days later, on 25 November 2024, complaining about the work of the pest controller, although without clearly identifying how the pest control controller had undertaken its services below that standard which ordinarily would be expected, and about continuing to be bitten by insects at the premises.
3. The renter then engaged her own pest controller, Mr Pest Controller, who attended on 29 November 2024. A report of the same date does little to advance the applicant's case (the 'second report'). However, the report did identify mouse droppings as having been found in the kitchen, suggesting a conclusion contrary to the first pest controller report. The renter provided the second report to the rental provider by way of email on 4 December 2024, expressing once more her concerns with the first report; she also requested reimbursement for the costs of constructing a fly wire screen.
4. Instead of undertaking activities to investigate further or ensure that there was no infestation of insects or mice at the premises in light of the mouse droppings identified at the premises in the second report, the rental provider's agent, somewhat curiously, instead offered early termination of the tenancy. When asked what conduct of the rental provider the renter considered unreasonable, the renter submitted that the rental provider should have taken seriously her complaints regarding the competence of the pest controller. When asked what she believed the rental provider should have done in those circumstances, the renter suggested that the rental provider should have installed fly wire screens at the premises. This was despite the existence of such screens.
5. Having regard to the parties' evidence as a whole, I find that the conduct of the rental provider in relation to the pest infestation was initially reasonable given that at the time that the insect infestation was first identified on 15 November 2024 it was not clear what the pest being complained of was. Initially, the renter feared there was a mouse mite infestation; later, she feared a flea infestation, and only later did she identify flying midges as the possible culprit. From the uncontested evidence of the parties presented today, I accept that there were midges in or around the property, that they breed in soil, and that they predominantly occupy outside spaces. As such the solution would be to put in fly screens, but not to do many of the things that were first requested by the renter. In my view, the rental provider acted reasonably in engaging a pest controller to ascertain the nature and extent of any pest infestation.
6. The renter further submits that the first pest controller did not act professionally. On her evidence, however, the claim that the pest controller acted below the standard expected has not been established. At the time that the first pest controller visited the premises, they could find no mouse droppings. While droppings were later found by the second pest controller, which suggests that there were in fact mice at the rented premises, and while I find that there were mice at the premises as a result of the second report, the reason for the lack of identification of the mice infestation in the first report may be found in the terms of that report itself which observes that there was recent cleaning at the premises. The renter has not established that the first pest controller acted in it in a substandard way.
7. Nonetheless, the fact that the second report did identify mouse droppings is damaging to the defence of the actions subsequently taken by the rental provider and gives some force to the complaints that were advanced by the renter. Upon learning of the discovery of mouse droppings in the second report, and given the inability the rental provider's agent expressed at hearing to resolve the conflicting reports, it would be reasonable for the rental provider to undertake further investigatory works, rather than simply to offer early termination. I consider that the rental provider in not taking substantive action in relation to those complaints after being given a copy of the second report was inbreach of the duty to maintain the premises in good repair and do what could reasonably be expected to ensure that there was not a pest infestation at the premises. As such, I find that one week from notifying the rental provider of the continued issue of rodent infestation, as evidenced by identification of mouse droppings in the second report, the rental provider was in breach of her duty to maintain the premises in good repair.
8. I do not consider that the rental provider was otherwise in breach of her duties in respect of the insect infestation. The insects were, on the renter's submissions, ones that entered the property from outside, and very little could be reasonably done by the rental provider to prevent them from inhabiting space around the premises, but for the installation of doors and fly wire screens.

1. The renter has requested reimbursement of the cost of cleaning products and for the construction of an additional fly screen on 18 November 2024. This was three days after notifying the rental provider of the pest infestation. The cost of the materials to build the fly screen amounts to $37. Given that no opportunity was given to the rental provider to mitigate her loss before the costs were incurred by the renter, I will not be making any award for that amount. Otherwise, the renter has not established that cleaning of the premises was necessary or that compensation should be awarded on this basis.
2. This brings us to the reasons for the rental provider taking very limited steps to address the urgent repairs complained of in December 2024 to January 2025. While the rental provider offered the renter to terminate the tenancy early without penalty, which offer the renter took up on 11 December 2024, and while it may seem understandable in those circumstances for a rental provider to undertake very limited repair works at the premises, for as long as the tenancy is on foot, the rental provider is bound by an absolute and strict duty to maintain premises in good repair, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Victoria in Shields v Deliopoulos [2016] VSC 500 (7 September 2016). In that case, the court held that while what amounts to 'good repair' may be referable to the age and character of the relevant premises. The duty cannot ordinarily be qualified by the state of repair at the commencement of the tenancy, regardless of the state of repair. Rather, the duty imposed upon a landlord to ensure that rental premises are in good repair is strict and absolute and imposes an obligation upon a landlord to identify and rectify any defects of which they are aware or ought to be aware: at [30].
3. While accepting that between 24 December 2024 and 6 January 2025 the property agency managing the property was closed, I find it difficult to comprehend the reasons for the rental provider's agent asserting, on a number of occasions, that no works would be undertaken until the manager of the agency returned on 21 January 2025. Given that these were urgent repairs as defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic), I find the response of the rental provider delaying any action on these repairs for almost two months to be severely wanting and to amount to a breach of the rental provider's duty to maintain the premises in good repair.
4. Having regard to each of these matters, I have considered what the appropriate quantum of compensation should be for the renter. In calculating this, I have had regard to a range of factors, importantly the rent at the premises, which was $1,738 per calendar month, the period over which each of the two identified breaches occurred, beginning when the rental provider ceased acting reasonably after being notified of the issues with pests and water ingress, and the lack of use of the bedroom at the premises during the relevant periods. In this regard, I find that the rental provider's conduct fell below that which could be expected of a reasonable landlord, first in relation to the mould and water ingress issues from 5 December 2024, and second in relation to the pest infestation issues from 11 December 2024.
5. I have also taken into account the opportunity each party has had to mitigate their losses, the serious nature of the breach of the duty to maintain the premises in good repair, and, importantly, what appears to me to be a flagrant breach of that duty by in refusing to undertake any works for quite some time during the tenancy while knowing that the repairs complained of were urgent for which I consider an award of $250 for inconvenience is appropriate. I have also had regard to the steps taken by the parties to resolve this matter, allowances made to terminate the tenancy without prejudice, the factors outlined in sections 211 and 211A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) and the Guidelines issued by the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria.
6. Nonetheless, I do not consider that the renter should be entitled to compensation amounting to 50% of the rent, in respect of each of the breaches. She still had substantial use of the premises.
7. In relation to the water ingress and mould issues I consider that a bedroom is an important room in the one-bedroom premises and, having found that the renter moved out of her bedroom and no longer had use of it for a substantial period of the tenancy as was intended under the lease, it is appropriate to award 35% of the rent payable during the period the rental provider was in breach of her duty. In addition, I consider that the renter acted reasonably in purchasing a dehumidifier to ensure that she had some use of the premises but also finding that, by purchasing the dehumidifier at a time before the rental provider had an opportunity to mitigate her own loss, it is appropriate to award only $200 for the purchase of that dehumidifier.
8. In relation to the pest issues at the premises, I consider that the rental provider acted reasonably for some time in relation to the pest issues including up to and including the commissioning of the first pest control report. However, from receipt of the second report, which indicated that there were mouse droppings at the rented premises not discovered in the first report, I find that on balance the rental provider was in breach of her duties to maintain the premises in good repair from 11 December 2024 to 20 January 2025. I consider that 10% of the use of the premises was impacted and appropriate to award $228.56.
9. I do not consider it appropriate to make an award for costs associated with time spent by the renter addressing issues, finding accommodation and for interruption to her work schedule, making the VCAT application and the application fee. In this regard, it is generally the case that each party bears their own costs for applications in the Residential Tenancies List and on raising this with the applicant, she did not persuade me otherwise. In relation to claims made against the rental provider's agent personally of a punitive nature, and not against the renter, as explained to the renter at hearing, it is not the appropriate case in which to make such an award.
10. Having regard to these matters, I find that the renter's claim for compensation has been proven today for the residential rental provider's failure to maintain the premises in good repair in the sum of $1,598.51.

[[1]] These are both urgent repairs within the meaning of section 3 of the Residential Tenancy Act 1997 (Vic).