1. The tenant is, by her own admission, a hoarder. On 24 May 2016 SAHT served on the tenant a notice of breach. It alleged that the tenant was in breach of the above condition of tenancy. The notice required the tenant to remedy this situation within 14 days or to move out of the tenancy if the breach was not remedied. The tenant failed to remedy the breach within the required time but did not move out.
2. SAHT brought proceedings in the Tribunal seeking possession of the property. Subsequently, the matter has taken a prolonged course in this Tribunal. It will be helpful to set out that course in some detail. Before doing so, however, I will make some comments about the relevant legislation.

Legislative provisions applicable to SAHT tenancies

1. A tenancy in which SAHT is the landlord is not governed by the same legislative provisions as apply to other residential tenancies. Section 5(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (the Act) specifies which provisions of the Act apply to tenancies in which SAHT is landlord. In relation to procedures for termination and possession, it is provided that sections 87, 89A, 90, 93, 99, and 110 - 112 (and only those sections) apply to such tenancies.
2. Section 80 of the Act does not apply to a SAHT tenancy. In relation to non-SAHT tenancies, this section provides for the service of a "notice of termination on ground of breach of agreement". The tenant can be given a period of at least seven days to remedy an alleged breach of agreement. If the breach is not remedied, the tenancy will be terminated by force of the notice. However, the Tribunal may reinstate the tenancy if the notice was not valid, or if the tenant was not in breach of the tenancy agreement, or if the breach has been remedied. Importantly, even if the tenancy has been validly terminated, the Tribunal may reinstate the tenancy either absolutely or conditionally if satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so.
3. The position with a SAHT tenancy is different. The procedure under s 80 does not apply. If a tenant is in breach of the tenancy agreement, the tenancy agreement provides that SAHT may serve a notice of termination of the tenancy, giving 14 days' notice. If that notice is validly served (and the assertions upon which it is based can be made out), the notice terminates the tenancy. As s 80 does not apply, recourse must be had to s 110 (1) (f) of the Act if a validly terminated tenancy is to be reinstated by the Tribunal.
4. As s 80 does not apply, there is no specific authorisation for the type of notice of termination prescribed by that section. Specifically, there is no authorisation for a notice of termination which is conditional on failure to remedy a breach within a stated period. Nor, in my opinion, does the standard SAHT tenancy agreement contemplate or authorise such a notice.
5. In my view, the clause set out in paragraph 3 above contemplates a definitive notice that a tenancy will be terminated at the end of the given period of notice. The agreement envisages that the tenant will have 14 days' notice of the termination of the tenancy and any subsequent requirement to move out. This is not achieved in a situation where the notice of termination is not absolute and may depend on a state of affairs which is still unresolved well into the 14 day period. As an illustration of this, the tenant may still be hopeful 10 days into the period that the breach will be able to be remedied to the satisfaction of SAHT. Such a tenant will not have 14 days' notice of termination.
6. Reverting for a moment to the facts of this case, I am not satisfied (for the reason set out above) that the notice served on the tenant was capable of validly terminating the tenancy. As will appear from these reasons for decision, that view is not determinative of the outcome of this matter. However, SAHT would be wise, in my view, to review this aspect of its procedures.
7. SAHT is of course required to conduct matters as a model litigant. It is obviously desirable (at least as a general principle) that a tenant be given an opportunity to remedy an alleged breach before action is taken to terminate a tenancy. This could be by a "notice to remedy breach" which makes it clear that failure to remedy may lead to action to terminate. If the breach was not remedied, there are two alternative approaches open to SAHT. A notice of termination could then be given. Such notice would state (unconditionally) that the tenancy will terminate and the tenant must move out at a date at least 14 days hence. Alternatively, instead of such notice of termination, SAHT may choose to apply to the Tribunal under s 87 of the Act for termination and possession. In matters of any complexity, this might be considered to be an appropriate approach for a model litigant in that it would allow the asserted basis for the termination to be reviewed by the Tribunal. This would be consistent with SAHT's usual approach of applying to the Tribunal in matters under s 90 instead of attempting to terminate such tenancies by notice of termination.

1. On 17 June 2016 SAHT lodged an application for "termination and vacant possession". The application referred to the notice of breach and asserted that the breach had not been remedied. At hearing, however, SAHT did not pursue an immediate order for possession. It sought an order for the tenant to continue with cleaning of the premises and an order for access to inspect the property. The tenant agreed to an inspection of the premises.
2. At this hearing on 7 July 2016 the Tribunal received evidence which demonstrated that the tenant was in breach of the condition of tenancy. Rubbish was piled up against the front of the premises and numerous complaints had been received from neighbours. The tenant stated she had arranged for another skip bin. The Tribunal found that the tenancy had been terminated by virtue of the notice of breach and the failure to remedy. The Tribunal ordered that the tenant could remain in the property on condition that she arrange for the clean-up and removal of rubbish and belongings from the front yard and that she provide access to officers from SAHT for the purpose of conducting an inspection of the whole of the premises on Friday, 5 August 2016. The Tribunal adjourned further consideration of the matter to 8 September 2016. These orders were appropriate, in my view, regardless of the validity or effectiveness of the notice of termination.
3. On 5 August 2016, the date that had been set for the inspection, the tenant applied to vary that order in order to change the date of the inspection to Friday 19 August 2016. She claimed that she had had an adverse reaction to a substance administered to her in hospital the previous day. When this application came before the Tribunal on 16 August 2016, the tenant did not attend. Her daughter telephoned the Tribunal and participated in the hearing. She said that her mother had back and leg problems related to a previous accident. The Tribunal varied the order as requested by the tenant to now direct that the inspection take place on Friday, 2 September 2016.
4. The matter again came before the Tribunal on 8 September 2016. On the day of this hearing, the tenant applied for an adjournment, citing the fact that she and her disabled son had been unwell for some weeks and that other traumatic events had occurred in her family. She provided evidence relating to the health of her son. The Tribunal attempted to contact her by telephone to participate in the hearing but she did not answer. It was noted that the tenant had failed to provide access to officers of SAHT for the inspection on 2 September. The Tribunal decided to give the tenant a further opportunity to provide access for an inspection on Monday, 26 September 2016 and ordered accordingly. The matter was adjourned to 29 September 2016.
5. On 29 September 2016 the tenant again failed to attend the hearing. The Tribunal telephoned her and her daughter answered the phone. She claimed that her mother was unwell and unable to participate. The tenant's daughter asked to participate on her behalf. The Tribunal was advised that SAHT had failed to attend the property at the time set for the inspection on 26 September. The Tribunal ordered that an inspection occur on Thursday, 13 October 2016.
6. On 13 October 2016 the tenant telephoned the Tribunal registry. She stated that she was in Yankalilla and no-one was home to facilitate the inspection scheduled for that day. SAHT subsequently sought an urgent hearing and provided photographs taken of the outside of the property on 13 October 2016. These demonstrate that the carport was piled high with items, there was rubbish in the yard and the back yard was overgrown.
7. A further hearing was scheduled for 2 November 2016. The tenant emailed the Tribunal on the day of the hearing, requesting an adjournment as she was "experiencing a massive amount of anguish and stress". She stated that she had caused a death a week earlier by running over a person. The tenant failed to attend the hearing and was not available when contacted on her mobile telephone as she was said to be attending a GP. SAHT opposed any adjournment. It pointed out that it had been attempting since at least October 2015 to engage with the tenant to gain access to inspect the property. The tenant had sought numerous adjournments, often on very short notice and without adequate evidence. The Tribunal determined that it would proceed with the hearing.
8. The Tribunal noted that the tenant had failed to provide access for the purposes of an inspection on 13 October 2016. The Tribunal reviewed the photographs referred to above and commented that they showed "an extensive quantity of household goods and effects piled up in the carport and extensive weeds and debris at the back of the property". The Tribunal ordered that the tenant must move out of the premises by Wednesday, 9 November 2016.
9. By application dated 4 November 2016 the tenant applied to vary or set aside this order. She supplied a letter from an officer of Disability SA with respect to her personal and family circumstances. On 9 November 2016 the Tribunal set aside the previous order and directed that the tenant could remain in the property providing that she facilitated access for an inspection on Thursday, 24 November 2016. The Tribunal indicated to the tenant that she was extremely likely to be evicted if access was not provided.
10. The inspection on 24 November 2016 went ahead. Access was granted to all parts of the premises. Photographs were taken. They show that the tenant was clearly in breach of the relevant condition of tenancy. The condition of the premises was unsatisfactory, both internally and externally.
11. SAHT brought the matter on again before the Tribunal on 20 December 2016. The Tribunal received the photographic evidence from SAHT and observed that the condition of the property was not satisfactory. The tenant stated that she had had 11 skip bins at the property and had sought assistance from a Tenancy Support Programme run by Uniting Care Wesley. The Tribunal agreed to allow the tenant a further opportunity to clean up the property with the assistance of this programme. Further consideration of the matter was adjourned to Monday, 23 January 2017.
12. On 23 January 2017 the matter was again adjourned for the tenant to continue to clean up the property. The tenant was ordered to provide a "clean-up plan" to the Tribunal and to provide access for an inspection on 17 March 2017. Although not the subject of an order, the Tribunal specifically stated that the tenant "must address the issue of the hazardous spa located in the front garden prior to the next hearing".
13. The next hearing was on 20 March 2017. The tenant failed to attend although it had been made clear that her presence was expected. The Tribunal attempted to telephone her without success. Evidence was given that the tenant was not present to give access when officers attended for the inspection on 17 March 2017. The spa was still in the front yard with various items on top of it including an exercise bike and a number of tyres. There was a skip in the front yard (funded by Disability SA) but it was empty. The Tribunal was advised that the tenant had failed to engage with the SAHT Intensive Tenancy Support Programme. The tenant had failed to lodge a clean-up plan as ordered.
14. The Tribunal concluded that the tenant had failed to make any real progress since the previous hearing. She had failed to clean up the property despite having over eight months to do so. She had failed to engage with available supports and had failed to comply with orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered that the tenant must move out of the property by 10 April 2017.
15. In my view, this was clearly the correct and preferable decision on the material before the Tribunal at that time. The evidence before the Tribunal demonstrated a serious and ongoing breach of the condition of tenancy. The breach was sufficiently serious to terminate the tenancy. The tenant's failure to make adequate progress in remedying this breach, to engage adequately with available supports, to comply with Tribunal orders and to attend the Tribunal hearing made it impossible to seriously consider any alternative decision.

1. The tenant sought internal review of the decision. On internal review, the tenant has not challenged (nor could she have seriously challenged) the fact that she has been in breach of the condition of tenancy over a prolonged period. The thrust of the tenant's case is that she has made some progress in cleaning up and will continue to do so. She asks that her personal circumstances be taken into account and that she be given more time.
2. The internal review came before Justice Parker on 5 April 2017. The tenant (who was said to be stressed and to have suffered a "mental breakdown") was not present but was represented by her daughter. She stated that the spa had been removed and that she had taken other steps to clean up. She requested two more months to clean up the property. A medical certificate was presented but it was in quite general terms.
3. The Tribunal adjourned the matter until 12 May 2017 to allow the tenant another opportunity to attend, preferably with the assistance of a suitable advocate or support person. The Tribunal ordered an inspection on 8 May 2017. The Tribunal also ordered that the orders made on 20 March 2017 be set aside. It is clear that these orders were set aside for the practical reason that they required the tenant to vacate on 10 April and the internal review was now being adjourned until after that date. The Tribunal did not set aside the decision or findings that had formed the basis for those orders. That issue remained to be heard and determined.
4. On 8 May 2017, the day set for the inspection, the tenant submitted a letter from a social worker in support of a request for an adjournment. The letter reported that the applicant was in hospital after suffering a heart attack and having a stent inserted. She was about to be discharged but the social worker stated she was not "in the right physical or mental frame of mind to adequately participate in a SACAT hearing". Justice Parker refused the request for adjournment.
5. The applicant attended the hearing on 12 May 2017, accompanied by Ms Catherine Ward from Partners in Recovery. SAHT reported that the inspection on 8 May 2017 was not facilitated as the tenant was not there to provide access. However, photographs were taken of the front of the property. These photographs indicated that the spa had been removed but there were still chairs and visible clutter at the front of the property. The tenant acknowledged that "the rest of the house is not good". The tenant submitted that with the assistance of her support worker she would engage in necessary programs and obtain the assistance she needed to tidy up the property. The support worker indicated that she would obtain psychological support for the applicant and facilitate her participation in a hoarding program. SAHT agreed to an adjournment for this to occur. Justice Parker adjourned the matter to 23 June 2017 but ordered inspections on 19 May and 21 June 2017. He stated:

I note that this is about the tenth time Ms O'Malley has been before the Tribunal in the past 12 months. I am encouraged that Ms O'Malley has acknowledged she has a problem and sought a support worker. Ms O'Malley needs to make serious efforts to improve the tidiness of the house. Existing photographs of the inside of the property show significant untidiness and squalor. It is unacceptable for Ms O'Malley and her children to be living in these circumstances. I will adjourn the matter but will require Ms O'Malley to cooperate with the Trust to provide access for inspections. I encourage Ms O'Malley to make a start on improving the property even before the hoarding program starts. The hoarding program is designed to guide Ms O'Malley and provide support and encouragement, but it will also require Ms O'Malley to push herself to take action. I would like to see significant progress when the matter is called back on.

1. At the hearing on 23 June 2017 SAHT indicated that an inspection had occurred on 19 May 2017 but SAHT were unable to provide photographs or any details beyond noting that hoarding was evident. On 21 June 2017 the tenant did not answer her door. She was telephoned and said that she did not hear the knocking. An alternative arrangement had been made for a visit on 23 June 2017. When SAHT staff arrived for that inspection the tenant said that she wanted to adjourn the inspection due to the late notice. The tenant advised the Tribunal that the premises had been inspected on 19 June 2017 by a representative from the Onkaparinga Council. Arrangements had been made for a skip bin to be delivered to the property on Monday 26 June 2017 and for two men to attend on that day to place furniture in the bin. The tenant also indicated that she would be attending a "12 week hoarding program called "Buried Treasures" commencing in August 2017. Justice Parker ordered that an inspection occur on 10 July 2017 and adjourned the matter to a date to be fixed.
2. On 10 July 2017 the tenant telephoned the Tribunal registry and advised that she had missed the inspection ordered for earlier that day. Despite being present (by telephone) when the order was made and despite the order having been emailed to her on 23 June 2017, she claimed that she had not been reminded of the order. She was advised to contact SAHT and arrange another inspection time.
3. The next hearing was before me on 25 July 2017. The tenant attended although she had contacted the Tribunal earlier in the day to advise that she was too unwell to do so. The Tribunal was advised that no inspection had occurred. Further, the tenant had cancelled the services of the two workers who were to assist her on 26 June 2017 as she was unwell. The Tribunal indicated that it would allow the tenant one last chance to facilitate the inspection at 12 noon on 26 July 2017. The matter was adjourned to 1 August 2017.
4. On 1 August 2017 Ms Ward again attended with the tenant. The Tribunal was advised that an inspection had occurred on the 26 July 2017. SAHT tended a bundle of photographs taken at the inspection. The property was still in a highly unsatisfactory condition. The tenant indicated, however, that she had made significant progress in cleaning the house since the inspection on 26 July. She had filled a skip bin and arranged regular cleaning. She produced some photographs on her phone which corroborated some degree of improvement. Ms Ward also stated that there had been improvement. The tenant also stated that she had that day instructed a solicitor to represent her but the solicitor was not able to attend this hearing. Over the objection of SAHT, and with considerable hesitation, the Tribunal allowed an adjournment for the solicitor to attend. The matter was adjourned to 14 September 2017 with an inspection being ordered for 12 September 2017.
5. At the adjourned hearing on 14 September 2017 it transpired that the tenant had not obtained legal representation. However an inspection had taken place on 12 September 2017 and photographs were presented to the Tribunal. The inspection established that some work had been done; the floors had been cleaned, and dishes and the sink had been cleaned. Items were still stacked in the dining room which appeared unchanged. There were items piled in the lounge. Bedroom 1 was still inaccessible. Bedrooms 2 and 3 had been cleared to some extent although some piles of items were still found in bedroom 3. Backyard grass had recently been slashed but an un-roadworthy car was still in the yard. The skip bin had been filled. The support worker indicated that she was impressed with the tenant's progress. It was agreed that a further adjournment would be allowed to allow the tenant to complete her cleaning of the property. The matter was adjourned to 25 October 2017. It was ordered that a further inspection take place on Monday, 23 October 2017.
6. The tenant was not at home at the time scheduled for the inspection on 23 October 2017. The Tribunal was later advised that she had driven to rescue her adult daughter who was stranded interstate. SAHT took photographs of the external areas including the carport. These continued to be in an unsatisfactory condition.
7. On 25 October 2017 there was no appearance by or on behalf the tenant. The tenant's daughter had rung the Tribunal and informed the Tribunal that the tenant had been admitted to hospital the previous night with a suspected heart attack. The Tribunal agreed to adjourn the matter for two weeks and asked for the provision of a medical report. The matter was adjourned to 8 November 2017. The medical report which was subsequently provided confirmed that the tenant had presented to hospital complaining of chest pain but investigations appeared to be unremarkable and she was discharged the same day.
8. The matter again came before the Tribunal on 8 November 2017. Some days prior to the hearing the tenant had sought an adjournment and provided a certificate from her GP stating that she was suffering from a viral infection. She was advised that the matter would proceed but that she could attend by telephone. The tenant responded that she would attend in person. On 8 November 2017 the tenant again presented to hospital complaining of chest pain on the day of her hearing. The Tribunal contacted the hospital and was advised that the tenant was likely to be discharged home that same day. The information provided did not suggest that there was any major concern about the condition of the tenant's cardiac health. The Tribunal contacted the tenant by telephone at the hospital and the tenant participated in the hearing by means of that phone conference. She claimed that the property had been entirely cleaned out except for the external carport and that she could provide photographs or allow an inspection to provide proof of this. She agreed to facilitate an inspection by officers of SAHT on 10 November 2017 at 2.00 pm. During her participation in the hearing I formed the view that the tenant was lucid and appeared to have a clear understanding of the proceedings and of what was being said to her. I decided that I would give the tenant one last opportunity to facilitate an inspection. I adjourned the matter until 15 November 2017 and ordered that the inspection take place. I made it clear that failure to facilitate this inspection would place the tenant at risk of immediate eviction.
9. On 15 November 2017 I was advised by the parties that the inspection had occurred on 13 November 2017. SAHT produced photographs that were taken at the inspection. Officers of SAHT gave evidence of what they had observed during the inspection. The tenant indicated that she did not dispute this account or their discussion of the photographs. The photographs demonstrate that the condition of the property remained grossly unsatisfactory. The carport was filled with clutter and rubbish to the extent that it could barely be entered. The kitchen and dining area was cluttered with various items on the floor and on top of furniture and benches. There was only a narrow passageway of uncluttered floor, enabling that area to be traversed. There were numerous tripping hazards. The lounge room also had boxes and garbage bags full of items piled up in a seemingly indiscriminate fashion. Parts of bedroom 3 were cluttered such that there was no access to furniture or items stored in cupboards. Bedroom 1, otherwise referred to as the spare bedroom, was full of items to the extent are that the officers could not step into the room and could not open the door properly. The whole room was filled with an untidy mess of clutter and rubbish. The tenant's own bedroom area had items and rubbish piled up and covering most of the floor. There was apparently a clear area in front of the bed. Items were also stored in stacked boxes and containers in the hallway and there was an untidy pile of stacked items in the laundry. There was a pile of unused bricks in the back yard together with old and new air-conditioning units lying on the ground. The back yard contained the un-roadworthy vehicle with flat tyres. The rear garden was overgrown in places. There were car tyres and various furniture and equipment items strewn about the yard. These items can only be described as rubbish. Compared to the previous inspection, the condition of the premises had certainly not improved. It may have become worse. It was clear that the breach of the condition of tenancy was continuing and had not been adequately addressed. SAHT expressed concern regarding the health and safety hazards related to the condition of the premises including the difficulties that might arise if the tenant and her disabled son needed to evacuate the premises or if emergency services needed to access the premises. I share that concern. It was apparent to me from the photographs that the condition of the premises was likely to be both unsafe and unhygienic. This was compounded by the presence of three cats inside the premises during the inspection.
10. SAHT made it clear that it was seeking an order for possession of the premises with a 28 day vacation period being suggested as reasonable.
11. Ms O'Malley gave evidence on affirmation to the effect that some of the problem areas had been cleared of clutter and cleaned since the inspection on 13 November 2017. She showed the Tribunal photographs on her mobile phone to illustrate this point. She conceded that other rooms and areas such as the spare room and the carport remained as they had been on 13 November 2017. Given the long history of this matter, the Tribunal can have no confidence that the tenant's efforts to clean the premises between 13 and 15 November 2017 will be sustained. It appears that the tenant is capable of cleaning areas when she feels that no other option is open to her. Once she has staved off the fear of immediate eviction, however, it appears that the tenant ceases the clean-up activity and adopts instead a tactic of delay and excuses. She has now had a period of over 17 months since an application was first made to the Tribunal and has taken no satisfactory action to address the obvious problems.
12. The tenant gave evidence concerning her personal circumstances. She has a disabled son who lives with her. She has two other children who are also disabled, one of whom is pregnant and due to give birth in April 2018. The tenant herself has had significant health problems in recent times, including a heart attack in April 2017. She has had other very difficult circumstances to cope with during this period of time and has suffered considerable stress and anxiety. Her son has written to the Tribunal, pleading that they should be allowed to continue to live in the premises. He has referred to his personal circumstances which will be adversely affected if they must move out.
13. These are all matters of considerable significance and the Tribunal has given as much weight as possible to the family circumstances. However, both SAHT and the Tribunal have given the tenant every opportunity to rectify the situation and she has failed to do so. There is a serious and ongoing breach of the conditions of tenancy which clearly justifies termination of the tenancy. It is unsafe and unhealthy for the tenant and her family to continue to live in the premises. Termination is clearly the correct and preferable decision. I will give the tenant about 6 weeks to move out of the premises.
14. I find that the breach of the tenancy agreement is sufficiently serious to justify the termination of the tenancy under s 87 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. No other order would be appropriate. As previously stated, the order of the Tribunal made on 20 March 2017, being the order subject to this review, was set aside by the Tribunal at a previous hearing. In my view, the appropriate course is now to substitute an order that the tenancy will end and that the tenant must move out of the premises by Monday, 15 January 2017.