1. The rented premises needs rewiring. It is not disputed that the tenant will need to vacate the rented premises for this to occur.
2. The landlord is concerned for the tenant's safety and there is reason for serving the notice to vacate.
3. The tenant has been living in the rented premises for nearly 10 years. The tenant was only given notice to vacate on 21 February 2014. Prior to that date was thought the rewiring could occur with the tenant in place.
4. The tenant is due to undergo major surgery this coming Friday. The tenant is not in a position to vacate the rented premises for at least 2 months, maybe longer.
5. The tenant is not concerned that the premises are dangerous. The tenant is represented by the tenants union today.
6. The tenant agrees to vacate after she has had time to recover from her operation and can pack up the rented premises.
7. The landlord is agreeable to giving the tenant time to vacate, but is concerned for her safety.

The proceeding is adjourned to a date no later than 04 September 2014 to be heard by any Member of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The proceeding may be renewed by the landlord giving the principal registrar notice in writing but if the proceeding is not renewed on or before this date it shall be considered withdrawn."

1. The proceeding was not renewed, Mrs Randall having vacated on 28 August 2014.
2. Mrs Randall's claim for compensation related to 5 issues; issues with the lights; general electrical faults; the garage; the television antennae and a broken wiondow.

1. Mrs Randall said that there had been issues with the lights for at least 4 years. She used a number of lamps to light rooms, and used a torch to go to the toilet at night.
2. She stated she was unable to cook in the rented premises because of the electrical issues. Mrs Randall said that the exhaust fan in the kitchen could not be used; every time the fan was turned on the lights in the rented premises would go out. If she cooked without using the exhaust fan then the smoke detector would be set off. Due to the height of the ceiling, Mrs Randall's age and her physical limitations, she was not able to turn the smoke detector off. She said she would have needed to climb a ladder to turn it off.
3. Mrs Randall stated in her evidence that the landlord's agent's solution to this issue was to open the back door of the rented premises when she wanted to cook, or alternatively, she should remove the battery from the smoke detector.
4. Compensation for the lights and general electrical issues is only sought for the period 18 July 2013 to 29 August 2014. These claims are restricted to this period because Mrs Randall was not able to prove that she had made a formal complaint concerning these issues prior to 18 July 2013.
5. Mrs Randall gave evidence that issues with the lights were raised verbally with the landlord's agent, but that nothing was done in response. Evidence was given by or on behalf of Mrs Randall that verbal complaints were made subsequent to 18 July 2013 to the then managing agent known only as Stuart.
6. Documents tendered on behalf of the landlord show that the landlord did attend to some electrical repairs both prior to and subsequent to 18 July 2013.
7. On 17 July 2013, Mrs Randall obtained a quote from Armadale Electrical for the cost of re-wiring the rented premises. On 18 July 2013, the agent obtained a quote from Auburn Electrical Services for the cost of re-wiring the rented premises ("the Auburn Quote"). The Auburn Quote states that the work "would require the apartment to be empty of furniture and tenant".
8. A copy of the Auburn Quote was provided to the Tribunal as part of Mrs Randall's application. She could not say how she obtained that document. Ms Stubbs from the Tenants Union of Victoria was also unable to say how she came to be in possession of a copy of the Auburn Quote, but assumed it must have come from Mrs Randall. Irrespective of how Mrs Randall or her representatives came to have the Auburn Quote in their possession, what is clear is that the document and by assumption, its contents were known to Mrs Randall. It is open to the Tribunal to find Mrs Randall was aware of the necessity to vacate the rented premises so the re-wiring work could be carried out.
9. Mrs Randall said in her evidence that she was prepared to move out of the rented premises for a day or two to allow the re-wiring work to be carried out, but was not prepared to move out for any longer period. Furthermore, she said she could not afford the cost of removing her furniture and belongings whilst the work was done.
10. Ms Andrews said in evidence that the agent managing the rented premises at that time, Stuart, discussed the proposed re-wiring work with Mrs Randall. She said it was explained that all power to the rented premises would need to be cut, that it would be necessary to jack hammer the walls and then patch and repaint, and that the work would take over one month to be completed. Mrs Randall said she was happy to stay in the rented premises, and was not concerned about the rewiring work as long as the rent was not increased. Ms Andrews said that Stuart was not being called to give evidence on behalf of the landlord even though Stuart's whereabouts were known to the Ms Andrews.
11. Mrs Randall said that she discussed the electrical issues a number of times with Stuart. She said he continually told her that the issues would be addressed "next week". She said she obtained documents to initiate a claim in the Tribunal to seek an order for repairs. She said that Stuart took the documents from her and said he would deal with them, and that he would attempt to negotiate with the landlord first.
12. When Mrs Randall had not heard anything back from Stuart by Christmas 2013 she decided to leave the matter until the new year. When she made contact with the managing agent in January 2014 she was advised that Stuart had left the agency, and that a new agent had taken over the management. She then received the Notice to Vacate on 21 February 2014.
13. The findings made by the Tribunal on 4 March 2014 are not binding on me, however they are very persuasive.
14. One of the findings made on 4 March 2014 was that prior to service of the notice to vacate on 21 February 2014 it was thought that the re-wiring could be carried out with Mrs Randall remaining in the rented premises. One of the complaints made by Mrs Randall during the hearing was that the agent never sought to negotiate with her about moving out of the rented premises to allow the re-wiring work to be done, and never sought to negotiate over the cost of relocation during that period. In any event, by that time it was agreed that Mrs Randall needed to vacate.
15. Mrs Randall claimed compensation in relation to the electrical issues under 3 different categories; the lights, the general issues with the electrical wiring and general inconvenience.
16. The Tribunal has power to award compensation to a party pursuant to section 210 of the Act if the other party to the tenancy agreement has failed to comply with that party's duties under the Act. Section 210 has been held to empower the Tribunal to award compensation for inconvenience[1].
17. In determining what amount of compensation a party may be entitled to the Tribunal may take in to account the various factors set out in section 211 of the Act.
18. Section 211 reads as follows (in so far as it is relevant) :-

"The Tribunal, in hearing an application under section 209, 210, 210A or 210B, may take into account -

(a) whether or not the person from whom compensation is claimed has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the duties under this Act or under the tenancy agreement or site agreement in respect of which the claim is made; and

(b) in the case of a breach of a tenancy agreement, whether or not the applicant has consented to the failure to comply with the duties in respect of which the claim is made; and

(e) whether or not action has been taken by the applicant to mitigate the loss or damage."

1. It was submitted on behalf of Mrs Randall that the landlord had breached his duties under section 68 to maintain the rented premises in reasonable condition and section 67 in that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure Mrs Randall had quiet enjoyment of the rented premises by reason of the failure to carry out the necessary repairs to the electrical wiring of the rented premises.
2. Having considered the evidence I make the following findings:

(i) the landlord was aware of the issues with the electrical wiring in the rented premises and the recommendation that the rented premises undergo a complete re-wiring.

(ii) the landlord breached his duty to maintain the rented premises in reasonable condition.

(iii) there was discussion between Mrs Randall and the managing agent concerning Mrs Randall vacating the rented premises to allow the re-wiring work to be carried out.

(iv) Mrs Randall was only prepared to vacate the rented premises for a couple of days to allow the re-wiring to be carried out.

1. In response to Mrs Randall's refusal to vacate the rented premises for more than a couple of days, the landlord could have served a notice to vacate pursuant to section 255 of the Act requiring Mrs Randall to vacate the rented premises so that the necessary re-wiring work could be carried out. Ms Andrews and Mr Tillakaratne gave no explanation as to why a notice to vacate was not served prior to February 2014 when the Auburn Quote is date 18 July 2013. The landlord allowed Mrs Randall to stay in the rented premises after July 2013 even though, on the landlord's own evidence, the rented premises were uninhabitable.
2. Mrs Randall has claimed the following amounts:

$1,614.76 being 10% of the rent paid for the period 18 July 2013 to 29 August 2014;

(ii) in relation to the issue with the electrical wiring in general :-

$3,229.53 being 10% of the rent paid for the period 18 July 2013 to 29 August 2014;

1. It was submitted on behalf of the landlord that the above 3 categories of compensation are in effect the same, but expressed 3 different ways. In other words, Mrs Randall was in effect claiming the "same thing 3 times".
2. I am satisfied on the evidence that the issues relating to the lights and the electrical wiring in general are in fact one in the same issue. The landlord's evidence as constituted by the various repair invoices show that the problems with the lights not working and the exhaust fan shorting out the power and lighting circuits arise from the age and general poor condition of the electrical wiring. Accordingly, Mrs Randall is only entitled to claim compensation once in relation to that issue. I am satisfied that whilst the claim for general inconvenience arises out of the lighting/general electrical issue, it represents a separate head of compensation to the claim for compensation resulting from the landlord's breach of section 68 of the Act. I accept the evidence of Mrs Randall that she had to alter the way in which she lived in the rented premises because of the issues with the electrical wiring and that the duration of these changes amounted to a loss of quiet enjoyment of the rented premises.
3. Mrs Randall sought to address the issue by obtaining documents to make an application to the Tribunal for an order for repairs to be carried out. She did not follow through with this when she did not receive any response, or any meaningful response from Stuart. In part, this could be explained by her age, health and that Christmas 2013 was fast approaching.
4. Mrs Randall in her evidence on more than one occasion said that she was prepared to put up with the inconvenience caused by the electrical wiring issues as she understood that the rate of rent she was paying was "cheap for the area" in which the rented premises are located. At various stages of the hearing Mrs Randall said in evidence she was prepared to put up with no lights, the rent was set very low at the beginning of the tenancy, and that she was prepared to put up with the issues because of the convenience of living in the area she wanted to be in.
5. Section 211(e) of the Act requires a person who claims compensation to have taken all reasonable steps to reduce their loss or potential loss. Mrs Randall refused to vacate the rented premises for more than a couple of days to allow the re-wiring work to be carried out. Taking in to account the duration of the electrical issues (4 years), the nature of the electrical issues and her age and health, I find this attitude in all of the circumstances by Mrs Randall to have been inconsistent with having taken all reasonable steps to reduce her loss.
6. Whilst Mrs Randall clearly did not have the physical or financial ability to carry out the re-wiring herself, she could have adopted a more co-operative attitude with the landlord. If she had, it may well have assisted her in her stated aim of remaining in the rented premises and paying the same rate of rent she was paying.
7. The findings made by the Tribunal in its order made on 4 March 2014 shows that Mrs Randall in effect consented to the ongoing breach of duty by the landlord for the period she continued to occupy the rented premises. After having considered the matter at some great length, I can come to no other conclusion. If the electrical issues were causing Mrs Randall as much inconvenience as was submitted on her behalf, why did she agree to the situation continuing, particularly whilst she was convalescing from major surgery?
8. I find that Mrs Randall is entitled to compensation from the landlord due to the landlord's breach of sections 67 and 68 of the Act, however not in the sum of $5,844.29 as she has claimed. I further find that Mrs Randall is only entitled to compensation for the period 18 July 2013 to 4 March 2014, being the date of the hearing in the earlier proceeding. I fix the amount of compensation to which she in entitled in the sum of $1,410.48, being 10% of the rent for this period, plus a further sum of $500.00 for general inconvenience.

1. Mrs Randall claimed a sum of $132.00 in relation to the television antennae. She said that she had used "rabbits ears" for the television for a number of years. After the conversion of the television signal from analog to digital the "rabbits ears" no longer worked. Aerial cabling was located in the wall of the rented premises, but it had been cut at some prior time and as such did not work. Mrs Randall paid to have the cabling repaired so that she could use the aerial to receive the digital television signal. She said the landlord had agreed to reimburse her for this expense but that reimbursement never occurred.
2. The alleged agreement to reimburse Mrs Randall for this cost was not disputed by Ms Andrews and Mr Tillakaratne on behalf of the landlord.
3. I accept the claim by Mrs Randall and find she is entitled to the sum of $132.00 as claimed.

1. The claim by Mrs Randall for $75.00 in relation to the repair of a broken window in the rented premises was withdrawn during the hearing, when it was confirmed that she had not in fact had the window repaired during the course of the tenancy.

1. A sum of $943.50 was claimed for the cost of Mrs Randall relocating on vacating the rented premises in August 2014. This claim was explained on the basis that if the landlord had properly maintained the rented premises then Mrs Randall would not have had to relocate, and as such she would not have had to incur that expense.
2. This claim by Mrs Randall pre-supposes that she would not have vacated the rented premises in any other circumstances and would have remained living in the rented premises for the rest of her life.
3. Mrs Randall is 80 years old, and on her evidence is not in good physical health. She underwent "major surgery" in early March 2014[2].
4. In my opinion, it is speculative on the part of Mrs Randall to say that she would not have vacated the rented premises in any other circumstances. Accordingly, her claim for relocation costs is dismissed.

1. The garage that forms part of the rented premises is located under an open terrace. It was submitted on behalf of Mrs Randall that the waterproof membrane on the terrace had perished over time, and water is penetrating in to the concrete structure that forms the terrace and the roof of the garage. Mrs Randall says that the concrete structure has developed "concrete cancer" and pieces of concrete and debris are dropping from the roof of the garage. Mrs Randall reported this issue to the landlord's agent in or about November 2012.
2. The landlord and the then managing agent, Julia, attended and inspected the garage. Mrs Randall gave evidence that Julia told her that the garage had been inspected by a builder and declared safe. Mrs Randall asked for confirmation of the same in writing. When such written confirmation was not forthcoming, Mrs Randall decided not to use the garage.
3. Mrs Randall has claimed compensation of $990.00 in relation to the garage. This sum was calculated at the rate of $45.00 per month for 22 months, being the period from November 2012 to August 2014.
4. Having decided not to use the garage, Mrs Randall claims to be entitled to compensation because the garage was unavailable for use by her, her carer or her family.
5. In addition, Mrs Randall claimed a further sum of $100.00 for the cost of cleaning debris off her car. She said in evidence that there was a verbal agreement that the landlord would reimburse her for this cost. Mrs Randall said she gave the invoice for the car cleaning to Stuart. Ms Andrews said there was no record of the invoice on her file. Mrs Randall was unable to produce a copy of the invoice.
6. No evidence was provided to show that the garage was unsafe. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord did not provide any evidence that the garage roof is safe, the onus of proving the garage roof is unsafe lies with Mrs Randall as applicant.
7. The claim for reimbursement of the car cleaning cost must also fail, as Mrs Randall has not provided any evidence to prove that claim.
8. Mrs Randall's claims for the garage and the cleaning cost must fail.

1. For the reasons set out above, there will be an order that the landlord pay to Mrs Randall compensation fixed in the sum of $1,542.48.
2. Mrs Randall obtained a waiver from payment of the application fee to initiate this proceeding. Accordingly, no fee order is required.

[1] Reardon v. Ministry of Housing - unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, 13 November 1992 per Justice Smith, as cited in EL v. EA [2006] VCAT 2049 per Deputy President Steele (as she then was).

[2] Finding 4 of the Tribunal's order made on 4 March 2014.