(a) Broken air conditioning;

(b) Dishwasher drawers not working;

(c) Lack of exhaust fan in the bathroom;

(d) Malfunctioning garage door;

(e) Absence of blinds; and

(f) Leaking pergola

1. A hearing was held in person before me on 24 June 2025. It was adjourned, part heard, as there was insufficient time available on that day to complete the hearing.[3]
2. On 11 July 2025, Ms Sathiyamoorthy filed an application for a possession order based on rent arrears under section 91ZM of the Act. The parties requested, and I agreed, to hear this application alongside the outstanding compensation claim.
3. A hearing was held on 14 August 2025 in relation to the balance of the application for compensation and on 4 September 2025 in relation to the application for a possession order.
4. At all hearings, Ms Gomez represented the Renters and gave sworn evidence on her own behalf and on behalf of the Renters. Michaela Skinner ('Ms Skinner') and Jessica Good ('Ms Good'), Property Managers, represented Ms Sathiyamoorthy and gave sworn evidence on behalf of Ms Sathiyamoorthy.[4] Ms Sathiyamoorthy also gave evidence on her own behalf.
5. Both parties submitted documents in advance of the hearing on 24 June 2025 and submissions after the hearing on 24 June 2025 in relation to the claim for compensation. Likewise, documents were submitted in advance of the hearing on 4 September 2025 concerning the application for possession, and Ms Gomez also filed a one-page written submission following that hearing. All of this material has been considered.
6. Prior to the hearing on 14 August 2025, Ms Gomez wrote to the Tribunal and requested written reasons for the Tribunal's decisions in both matters. I therefore reserved my decisions and now provide the decisions and written reasons for each decision.

THE RENTERS' APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION - R2025/13218

1. To be entitled to compensation in their case, the Renters must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that for each of the Issues:

(a) Ms Sathiyamoorthy breached an obligation she had under the Agreement or the Act; and

(b) the Renters suffered a loss.

1. The Renters, in their Summary of Proofs for Renter Compensation Cases ('Summary of Proofs'), allege that Ms Sathiyamoorthy breached four legal duties owed under the Act.
2. These duties are:

(a) Under section 65A of the Act, which is the residential rental provider's duty to ensure that a rented premises complies with the Rental Minimum Standards[5] on or before the day on which a renter enters into occupation of those premises;

(b) The residential rental provider's duty to undertake safety related repairs and maintenance, under section 68A of the Act;

(c) Breach of the obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure Renters have quiet enjoyment of rented premises, under section 67 of the Act; and

(d) The residential rental provider's duty to maintain the rented premises in good repair and in a reasonably fit and suitable condition for occupation, under section 68 of the Act.

1. I comment briefly on the application of these laws to the claims.

1. The Renters claim in the Summary of Proofs that five of the Issues give rise to breaches of section 65A of the Act.
2. For the air conditioning, the Renters claim that the Rental Minimum Standards have been breached because it does not have a minimum star rating. For the garage door, the Renters allege it does not comply with Rental Minimum Standards.
3. These claims are misconceived. The Rental Minimum Standards are contained in a prescriptive list in Schedule 4 to the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2021 (Vic). They do not include any requirements for air conditioning units or garage doors. These cannot therefore be considered as potential breaches by Ms Sathiyamoorthy of section 65A of the Act.
4. Consideration is, however, given in these reasons as to whether, because of these Issues, there are breaches of the rental provider's obligation to maintain the rented premises in good repair and in a condition fit for habitation, as is required section 68 of the Act (see paragraph 30 below).
5. The Issues of the absence of blinds in kitchen and living room and the lack of ventilation in bathroom and dampness in bathroom will be considered as potential breaches of section 65A as these are matters provided for in the Rental Minimum Standards.

1. In the Summary of Proofs, the Renters state that they seek compensation based on a breach of section 68A of the Act, because of the malfunctioning garage door.
2. I find that this provision does not apply to this Issue. This is because, in effect, section 68A of the Act requires (in relevant cases[6]) that a residential rental provider undertakes prescribed electrical and gas safety checks, smoke alarm maintenance and activities relating to swimming pools and bushfire prone areas.[7] There is no mention of requirements applicable to garage doors and non-compliance with the requirements relevant to section 68A was not raised by the Renters.

Breach of the obligation to afford quiet enjoyment

1. In the Summary of Proofs for Renter Compensation Cases submitted by the Renters, the Renters allege a breach of the rental provider's duty to ensure quiet enjoyment of the rented premises. Under section 67 of the Act, a rental provider must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Renters have quiet enjoyment of the rented premises during the residential rental agreement.
2. This basis of this claim was that the Renters had to make numerous requests for maintenance and had to spend time allowing access to trades inspecting the rented premises and completing repairs. They also complain that they spent time on liaison with Consumer Affairs Victoria.
3. The most recent written submissions, provided on 13 August 2025, explained that:

(a) The Renters experienced long-term distress due to disrepair of facilities, caused by the rental provider's attitude of deliberate neglect and threats of eviction.

(b) The Renters spent hours chasing repairs with Consumer Affairs Victoria, with the current agent, with tradespeople, and then making time to allow tradespeople in to do the repairs.

(c) They also claim because:

what we had to endure and are continuing to endure, due this rental provider's attitude and irresponsible behaviour, my claim for no-quiet enjoyment of the premises is warranted.

1. The Renters seek 2.5% of the rent for 69 weeks for this alleged breach.
2. As has been in a previous decision of the Tribunal, Clarke v Director of Housing (Residential Tenancies) [2017] VCAT 1413 ('Clarke'), 'quiet enjoyment' is not defined in the Act, and it takes its meaning from the common law. The Tribunal explained in Clarke:

The right to quiet enjoyment encompasses the tenant's right to possess the property and to enjoy it for all usual purposes. A breach of quiet enjoyment will be found where the landlord, or people lawfully claiming under the landlord, have substantially interfered with the ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the property. This is so even if neither the title to the land nor the possession of the land are otherwise affected. Whether the landlord's interference is substantial is a question of fact and degree. Substantial interference is conduct that renders the premises 'unfit from a reasonable point of view for the purpose for which' the lease was granted.[8]

1. As explained below, there have been unreasonable delays by Ms Sathiyamoorthy in effecting repairs, and the Renters are entitled to compensation having regard to those delays for the reasons that follow.
2. However, the need for the Renters to spend time accommodating repairs to an air-conditioning unit, a garage door, the bathroom ventilation, the dishwasher and the pergola do not amount to a substantial interference with the ordinary and lawful enjoyment of the property in and of themselves. There is no breach of quiet enjoyment on the basis of these things. The same is true of the inconvenience complained of. While there is inevitably some disruption associated with securing the rental provider's compliance with her obligations, this is also not a basis on which to find a breach of the obligation to afford quiet enjoyment.
3. There are cases in which the Tribunal has, in the past, awarded compensation for inconvenience as a separate head of loss in a renter compensation claim. I have commented on the potential relevance of inconvenience to the award of compensation when explaining the applicable principles of compensation, at paragraph 35 to 37 below.
4. Finally, to the extent that the Renters have alleged a breach of quiet enjoyment ostensibly because of the rental provider's 'attitude of neglect', that is not a compensable matter under the Act. There is no requirement for the parties to be nice to each other. It is also not the purpose for which compensation is awarded, which is explained further at paragraph 34 below.

Claims of a failure to maintain the rented premises

1. The Renters allege that Ms Sathiyamoorthy breached her duty to maintain a rented premises, under section 68 of the Act, because of all of the Issues at the Rented Premises. In considering these claims, I assess them in light of the following principles:

(a) First, a residential rental provider is only required to repair defects of which they are aware or ought to be aware.[9]

(b) Secondly, a residential rental provider is to be taken to be aware of all maintenance issues that are brought to its agent's attention,[10] as an agent stands in the shoes of the residential rental provider when acting on its behalf and within the scope of the authority granted to them.

(c) Thirdly, a breach by a residential rental provider is not made out (and the entitlement to compensation does not arise) just because a defect came into existence. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the residential rental provider did not respond or did not have the repair completed in a reasonable period of time, after being made aware of the defect.[11]

1. In relation to the need to establish that a residential rental provider is on notice of a relevant defect, this will be satisfied by the inclusion of matters in the condition report prepared at the start of the tenancy. This is because section 36(1A) of the Act provides that a condition report that is given to a residential rental provider is taken to be notice given to the residential rental provider of any defects or outstanding repairs stated in the report.
2. In this case, I have had regard to the condition report, dated 20 October 2023, that contains the handwritten comments of the rental provider's agent and the handwritten comments of the Renters ('Ingoing Condition Report'). There are no photographs attached. The Renters evidence, which I accept, is that the Ingoing Condition Report was returned by email to the agent of the Rental Provider by the Renters on 9 November 2023, with their comments contained therein.
3. As explained below, where the Issues have been included in this report, I take Ms Sathiyamoorthy to be on notice of them, because of section 36(1A) of the Act.

1. In determining the Renters' loss, I must take into account the purpose for which compensation is awarded in residential tenancies cases. It was explained in a recent case, and I respectfully follow that reasoning, that the primary purpose of this award of compensation is to reimburse the Renters for the rent they paid, proportionate to that part of the rented premises for which they did not have the benefit.[12] It is not the purpose of an award of compensation to punish a residential rental provider for their conduct or that of their agents.
2. Because it was raised by the Renters, I have also considered whether there is a basis to award compensation for inconvenience, in addition to any compensation allowed for loss of amenity.
3. In Wenger, Senior Member Campana stated:

It is also unrealistic to expect that renting a property will be without incident. Fixtures and fittings will break down, items will require repair and trades will have to attend a property to carry out those repairs. A renter is, however, entitled to an expectation that a residential rental provider will comply with their obligations under the RT Act and to be compensated accordingly when the provider does not comply with such an obligation. The Renters are not entitled to compensation when a rental provider does comply with their obligations because the carrying out of the repair is inconvenient or disruptive.

1. In my view, applying this statement of principle, the disruption occasioned to the Renters in this case by the repairs would not justify additional compensation for inconvenience, over and above what is awarded for loss of amenity.

1. The compensation allowed is subject to the Tribunal's consideration of whether the Renters have mitigated their loss.[13] This is because, under the Act, a party is not entitled to damages for losses which, had they taken steps to mitigate, they would not have suffered.
2. In this case, the reasonable steps that the Renters could have taken were to:

(a) For urgent repairs, apply to the Tribunal for an order that Ms Sathiyamoorthy undertakes urgent repairs ('Urgent Repair Application');[14] or

(b) Where the repairs in question were not urgent, request that Consumer Affairs Victoria inspects and provides a report as to whether Ms Sathiyamoorthy is in breach of her duty to ensure that the rented premises is maintained in good repair and, if it is in breach, apply to VCAT for an order that Ms Sathiyamoorthy undertakes the non-urgent repairs, if Ms Sathiyamoorthy fails to make arrangements for the repairs to be carried out ('Non-urgent Repair Application').[15]

1. It is not in dispute in this case that the Renters did not, during the Agreement, bring any Urgent Repair Application or Non-urgent Repair Application.
2. The Renters state that they were not able to mitigate their losses by approaching Consumer Affairs Victoria or the Tribunal because they were concerned about retaliation by their rental provider. They argue that the Tribunal:

must also consider if there could have been any retaliation from the rental provider; the consequences of such retaliation and what it could mean to the renter's position; exactly when the renter could have safely avoided such consequences.

1. Their submissions went on to emphasise the power imbalance between rental providers and renters. Specifically, Ms Gomez on behalf of the Renters says:

I could not have approach [sic] Consumer Affairs for the repairs and for the compensation claims before Dec24-Jan25. The fear and threat of eviction was real and has been substantiated with evidence.

1. I do not doubt that the possibility of upsetting the rental provider was a consideration for the Renters - as it may be for many renters - in deciding when, how hard, and by what means they should press for repairs. However, to determine that this possibility alleviates the need for Renters to take legal steps open to them would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Act_,_ noting also that it is an offence under the Act for a person by threat or intimidation to persuade or attempt to persuade a party to a residential rental agreement to not exercise their rights to take or continue proceedings under this Act.[16]
2. In relation to the specific matter referred to by the Renters - that there was a threat of eviction by Ms Sathiyamoorthy, this occurred in May 2024. Summarised briefly, the Renters refused to allow a representative of BMT Quantity Surveyors to enter the rented premises to conduct a depreciation survey, including taking photographs. In response, Ms Sathiyamoorthy's previous agent wrote correspondence that stated, in effect, that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was likely to terminate the rental agreement at the end of the fixed term so that she could avoid further financial loss and have the depreciation schedule completed.
3. Although this conduct by the agent was not acceptable,[17] I am not persuaded that the threat of eviction referred to by the Renters in their submissions is relevant to the failure to mitigate loss in this case, because of when the need for repairs arose.
4. This is because the Issues arose before the relationship between the parties deteriorated and before the possibility of termination of the Agreement was mentioned by Ms Sathiyamoorthy's former agent, which was in around May 2024. Specifically,

(a) Five of the six defects or outstanding repairs was noted in the returned Ingoing Condition Report in October 2023;

(b) The sixth defect was reported in February 2024;

(c) The time for mitigation of the losses associated with each outstanding repair arises in each case within a few weeks of the report because the Renters must have known then that the Rental Provider was not going to carry out the repairs; and

(d) This was before May 2024.

1. I conclude therefore that the Renters were obliged to mitigate their losses in accordance with section 211 of the Act, and their failure to do so has been taken into account in calculating the compensation allowed.

1. In relation to this claim, the relevant evidence received by the Tribunal is summarised as follows:

(a) The Renters recorded on the Ingoing Condition Report that the air conditioning unit needed cleaning.

(b) The repair was followed up by the Renters in emails to the previous agent of Ms Sathiyamoorthy on 16 February 2024 and 15 April 2024.

(c) Ms Gomez sent a breach of duty notice addressed to Ms Sathiyamoorthy to the current firm of property managers on 26 December 2024 ('Breach Notice'). This relevantly said, 'Air-conditioner blowing out dirt and dust. Never been cleaned by owner before we moved in. Need cleaning. Unit cannot be used.'

(d) On 6 January 2025, Ms Gomez wrote an email to the agent explaining that the air conditioning repair was 'urgent' because 'Not only it blows dust but it cuts out after a while and stops working'.

(e) A photograph of the unit submitted shows an older-style brown unit with a silver dial.

(f) In oral evidence at the hearing, Ms Sathiyamoorthy said the air conditioning repair was not flagged with her at a routine inspection she attended in March 2024 and nor is it noted in the routine inspection report form August 2024. Ms Sathiyamoorthy personally became aware of the problem in January 2025.

(g) The unit was repaired on around 18 January 2025.

1. As explained above at paragraph 15, in the Summary of Proofs, the Renters initially alleged that there was a breach by the Rental Provider of the Rental Minimum Standards, because the air conditioning unit had only a 2-star rating. However, as there is no star rating requirement for air conditioning units in the Rental Minimum Standards and no evidence before the Tribunal as to the type, capacity or energy efficiency rating of the unit that was installed, this breach is not proven.
2. Turning then to section 68 of the Act, I find that the air conditioning unit was not in 'good repair' within the meaning of section 68 of the Act, from the date it was reported to the then-property manager in the Ingoing Condition Report on 9 November 2023.
3. While I accept that Ms Sathiyamoorthy did not personally know of the issue, it was brought to the attention of her agent, who stood in her shoes for the purposes of section 68 of the Act.
4. A reasonable time to repair, that is, clean the air conditioning unit would have been 14 days.
5. I therefore find that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was in breach of her duty to maintain the rented premises in good repair, from 23 November 2023.
6. The Renters claim compensation of 5% of the rent for 66 weeks.
7. In determining the amount of compensation to be allowed, I take into account that the Renters have not taken a reasonable step to mitigate their loss. This was an urgent repair,[18] in respect of which the Renters could have brought an Urgent Repair Application requiring Ms Sathiyamoorthy to repair the unit.
8. Had that happened, it is unlikely that the Renters would not have suffered more than 47 days' loss. This is based on the following:

(a) It would have been apparent to the Renters by the end of December 2023 that the rental provider was not going to fix the unit (four weeks after the breach commenced).

(b) If an Urgent Repair Application is made to VCAT, it is required to be heard within two business days (up to five calendar days, depending on when the application is made).[19]

(c) It is likely that the Tribunal would have ordered that the unit be repaired in 14 days.

1. I therefore fix compensation at 5% of the rent, as claimed by the Renters, but only for 47 days. The allowance of 5% fairly represents the extent to which the Renters' use of the rented premises was compromised by the malfunctioning air conditioning unit, which serviced the living areas of the home, with the breach commencing and continuing in the warmer months. The amount of compensation proven for this issue is $151.09.

1. The relevant evidence received by the Tribunal is as follows:

(a) The dishwasher is marked as working on the Ingoing Condition Report and there are no comments from the Renters about this item on the document.

(b) The Renters mentioned the dishwasher as an item requiring maintenance in an email to the Rental Provider's agent, on 16 February 2024, but it does not say exactly what was wrong with it.

(c) In oral evidence Ms Gomez described the problem as being that the drawers got stuck and did not go in and out, so the unit was very difficult to use.

(d) In oral evidence, Ms Sathiyamoorthy said that there were no concerns raised with her about the dishwasher at the routine inspection she attended in March 2024.

(e) In the Breach Notice, the Renters said:

Dishwasher dish-drawer cannot be pulled out. (Been that way when we moved in). Dishwasher cannot be used. Have reported before, but landlord does not want to fix.

(f) The dishwasher was completely replaced by 14 February 2025.

1. There was a dispute between the parties at the hearing about whether delivery and installation of the new dishwasher was unreasonably delayed by the Renters, who refused to allow installation in January 2025 because there was no cold water tap installed and able to be connected to the new unit. Ms Gomez said that she was concerned that the dishwasher could not be used properly without one. In response, Ms Sathiyamoorthy said that this was not a matter for the Renters to decide. For the reasons that follow, this issue is not material to the compensation to be awarded.
2. I accept the dishwasher was not in 'good repair' within the meaning of section 68 of the Act.
3. While the email of 16 February 2024 was not specific in describing the problem with the dishwasher, a prudent property manager would have followed up the Renters to find out the exact nature of the problem so that they could determine when and how to address it. To ignore an email stating that maintenance was required on dishwasher was careless, at best.
4. A reasonable time to repair the dishwasher would have been four weeks. I have formed that view because replacing the drawers was likely to have required parts to be ordered or, if that was not possible, the entire appliance may have to be replaced (which is, in fact, what occurred).
5. In failing to repair the dishwasher in a timely way, Ms Sathiyamoorthy is in breach of her duty to maintain the rented premises in good repair from 16 March 2024, being four weeks after it was reported to her agent on 16 February 2024.
6. The Renters claim compensation of 5% of the rent for 69 weeks.
7. However, I must take into account that the Renters have not taken all reasonable steps to mitigate their loss.
8. This was a non-urgent repair,[20] in respect of which the Renters could have requested an inspection and report by Consumer Affairs Victoria and applied to the Tribunal for a Non-urgent Repair Order, once it was apparent that the rental provider was not going to repair the dishwasher.
9. Had they done so, it is unlikely that the Renters would have suffered more than 108 days' loss (just over 18 weeks). This conclusion is based on the following:

(a) It would have been apparent to the Renters by the end of March 2024 that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was not going to fix the dishwasher, which is two weeks after the breach commenced.

(b) The Renters could then have requested an inspection and report from Consumer Affairs Victoria. This is likely to have taken no more than eight weeks.

(c) If the repair remained outstanding, an application could have been made to the Tribunal, which would likely have been listed for hearing in 7 business days[21] (up to 10 calendar days depending on the day of the week on which the application is made).

(d) It is likely that the Tribunal would then have ordered repair in four weeks.

1. I therefore fix compensation at 4% of the rent for 108 days. The daily rent was $64.29 per day.
2. I initially had reservations about whether the malfunctioning drawers necessarily meant that the appliance could not be used in its entirety. However, on balance, I accept the evidence of the Renters on this issue, as they were in the best position to know, particularly as Ms Sathiyamoorthy had only recently acquired the rented premises as an investment and had limited prior experience of it. Therefore, 4% of the rent fairly represents the extent to which the Renters' use of the rented premises was compromised by the inability to use the dishwasher. The amount of compensation proven for this issue is $277.73.

1. In relation to this claim, the relevant evidence presented to the Tribunal is:

(a) On the Ingoing Condition Report, the Renters have written in relation to the ensuite, 'No separate exhaust fan. Walls wet after shower.' The main bathroom exhaust fan is marked as 'working'.

(b) Ms Gomez gave evidence at the hearing that the ensuite window opens to around 30 centimetres and the entire room was wet after a shower, with condensation on the walls. She said it was not appropriate to open the window while showering for privacy reasons.

(c) Ms Sathiyamoorthy agreed that the issue in the ensuite bathroom was 'flagged' with her at the March 2024 routine inspection. She could not see any visible issues herself and she believed the ensuite complied with Rental Minimum Standards for ventilation because there was an opening window in the bathroom.

(d) The Property Managers submitted that the house was 'built to code' when constructed in around 2000. They said that the ventilation in the ensuite complied with Rental Minimum Standards because it had an opening window.

(e) No photographs were presented of the relevant area.

(f) An exhaust fan was installed in the ensuite on 14 January 2025.

1. The requirement in the Rental Minimum Standards for ventilation in bathrooms is stated as follows, for a residential house:

Each habitable room, bathroom, shower room, toilet and laundry must have ventilation satisfying Performance Requirement P2.4.5 of the BCA Volume Two, or the Acceptable Construction Practice in Part 3.8.5 of the BCA Volume Two.[22]

(a) A space within a building used by occupants must be provided with means of ventilation with outdoor air which will maintain adequate air quality.

(b) A mechanical air-handling system installed in a building must control -

(i) the circulation of objectionable odours; and

(ii) the accumulation of harmful contamination by micro-organisms, pathogens and toxins.

(c) Contaminated air must be disposed of in a manner which does not unduly create a nuisance or hazard to people in the building or other property.

1. Acceptable Construction Practice in Part 3.8.5 of the BCA says as follows:

Compliance with this acceptable construction practice satisfies Performance Requirement P2.4.5 for ventilation.

Ventilation must be provided to a habitable room, sanitary compartment, bathroom, shower room, laundry and any other room occupied by a person for any purpose by any of the following means:

(a) Openings, windows, doors or other devices which can be opened -

(i) with a ventilating area not less than 5% of the floor area of the room required to be ventilated; and

(ii) open to -

• (A) a suitably sized court, or space open to the sky; or
• (B) an open verandah, carport, or the like; or
• (C) an adjoining room in accordance with (b).

The ventilating area of a window is measured as the size of the openable sash of the window. This is the case regardless of the type of window, i.e. whether it is an awning, casement or sliding window and irrespective of the restrictions on the openable sash.

(b) Natural ventilation to a room may come through a window, opening, door or other device from an adjoining room (including an enclosed verandah) if -

(i) the room to be ventilated or the adjoining room is not a sanitary compartment; and

(ii) the window, opening, door or other device has a ventilating area of not less than 5% of the floor area of the room to be ventilated; and

(iii) the adjoining room has a window, opening, door or other device with a ventilating area of not less than 5% of the combined floor areas of both rooms; and

(iv) the ventilating areas specified may be reduced as appropriate if direct natural ventilation is provided from another source.

3.8.5.2(b) permits a room's required ventilation to be "borrowed" from an adjoining room, i.e. an adjoining room's ventilation can be used to help make up the total amount of ventilation required. The use of borrowed ventilation is acceptable if the provisions of 3.8.5.2(b) are applied to the subject room and to the total area of each relevant room.

(c) An exhaust fan or other means of mechanical ventilation may be used to ventilate a sanitary compartment, laundry, kitchen or bathroom, or where mechanical ventilation is provided in accordance with 3.8.5.3(b), provided contaminated air exhausts comply with 3.8.7.3.

1. For present purposes it is not necessary to include the Figure that appears in Part 3.8.5.
2. The Property Managers maintained the submission that the window had a ventilating area of more than 5% of the floor space in the room.
3. Without photos of the ensuite[23] or, more importantly, measurements of the space, there is insufficient evidence for me to form a view either way as to whether there is a breach of Rental Minimum Standards. As the Renters bear the onus of proof in the application, the breach is not proven.
4. However, I do accept that the ventilation in the ensuite was inadequate on the basis of Ms Gomez' evidence that it was impractical to open the window and that there was significant condensation affecting the use of the ensuite following the use of the shower. I have accepted her evidence because there is a contemporaneous record of the problem, it having been noted on the Ingoing Condition Report.
5. Notwithstanding the initial report, the issue was not attended to until January 2025. A reasonable time to investigate the problem and instal an exhaust fan would have been six weeks.
6. I find, therefore, that Ms Sathiyamoorthy breached her duty under section 68 of the Act to maintain the rented premises in good repair from 21 December 2023.
7. The Renters claim 2.5% of the rent for 70 weeks.
8. However, I also find that the Renters have not taken a reasonable step to mitigate their loss, such that they are not entitled to compensation for the entire period claimed.
9. This was a non-urgent repair in respect of which the Renters could have requested an inspection and report by Consumer Affairs Victoria, once it was apparent that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was not going to rectify the ventilation in the ensuite. They then could have applied to the Tribunal for a Non-urgent Repair Order if, after the report was provided, it was apparent that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was not going to attend to the issue. Had the Renters taken this step, it is unlikely that they would have suffered more than 122 days. This conclusion is based on the following:

(a) It would have been apparent to the Renters by the start of January 2024 that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was not going to fix the ventilation (approximately two weeks after the breach commenced).

(b) The Renters could then have requested an inspection by Consumer Affairs Victoria. This may have taken no more than eight weeks.

(c) If the repair remained outstanding, a Non-urgent Repair Application could have been made to the Tribunal, which would likely have been listed for hearing in seven business days (up to ten calendar days depending on when the application was filed).

(d) It is likely that the Tribunal would then have required Ms Sathiyamoorthy undertake the repairs within six weeks.

1. I accept the Renters' estimate that the loss of amenity was 2.5% of the rent. The assessment of 2.5% is appropriate because it takes into account that the ensuite was still able to be used, but not at all times. However, the compensation runs only for a period of 122 days. The amount of compensation proven for this issue is $196.07.

1. In relation to this claim, the evidence presented to the Tribunal can be summarised as follows:

(a) On the Ingoing Condition Report, the Renters have written, 'Garage door doesn't open properly'.

(b) Ms Gomez explained at the hearing that the door was a manual door, rather than one that had a motor. She said it was very unsafe to use, and would fly up in her face if an attempt was made to open it. It therefore could not be used.

(c) Ms Sathiyamoorthy gave evidence that she became aware of the problem on 1 November 2023.

(d) Email correspondence from the Rental Provider to her agent, dated 28 November 2023, reveals that Ms Sathiyamoorthy agreed to pay the Renters back if they paid for a new garage door. She said that she would pay them back in January 2024. Ms Sathiyamoorthy gave evidence that the Renters subsequently reneged on this.

(e) A new garage door was installed, paid for by Ms Sathiyamoorthy, on 22 December 2023.

(f) The Renters say they could not, however, use the garage door until a power point was installed via which the motor could run.

(g) The Renters initially claimed the power point was not installed until 26 January 2024, but Ms Sathiyamoorthy has submitted an email from the electrician which refers to the installation on 6 January 2024.

1. I find that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was in breach of her duty under section 68 of the Act from 29 November 2023 (four weeks after she became aware of the problem).
2. While the Renters could have brought an Urgent Repair Application to obtain orders for the repair, the issue was resolved relatively quickly when pressed. I therefore do not consider that the Renters have failed to mitigate their loss and that the failure to bring a repair issue for this claim affects the award of compensation.
3. The claim by the Renters is for 15% of the rent from 23 October 2023 to 26 January 2024.
4. Ms Sathiyamoorthy says that the claimed loss of amenity is excessive because the garage is only 23 square metres in size. She says that the loss of amenity should be calculated having regard to the size of the garage proportionate to the entire property, including the garden areas. This totals approximately 444 square metres. The Rental Provider also argued that the Renters' losses could have been mitigated by them parking outside the garage.
5. In response, the Renters clarified that their loss of amenity was based on the size of the garage compared to the rest of the house. They further submitted that it was not feasible for them to park outside because they had an expensive van to store in the garage.
6. In my view, if the rent paid by the Renters included the use of a secure garage, they are entitled to the use of that garage and for commensurate compensation if there is a breach of duty by the rental provider that results in an inability to have the benefit of the garage. It is not to the point that they could park somewhere else.
7. A reasonable time to investigate and repair the garage door would have been four weeks, which takes into account that the repair may not have been straightforward and that replacement may have been required (which is what in fact occurred). In this case, it took just over two months from when Ms Sathiyamoorthy became aware of the issue to instal a fully functioning garage door. I do not agree with Ms Sathiyamoorthy that in the period between when the new door was installed and when the power point was installed that the Renters could have, and should have, used the door via the use of extension leads. This was not a safe solution.
8. I will allow compensation of 8% of the rent for 38 days (up to 6 January 2024). I have not allowed claimed loss of amenity at 15% of the rent because I agree with Ms Sathiyamoorthy that I should consider the entirety of the rented premises when assessing the loss of amenity that relates to the garage. Doing the best I can, taking into account the floorplan submitted, 8% appears to me to be commensurate with the significance of the garage to the premises overall.
9. The claim proven is $195.43.

1. The evidence presented to the Tribunal was as follows:

(a) The Ingoing Condition Report records that, in the lounge, the 'blinds in the lounge area not sliding freely on tracks' and for the kitchen it says, 'same comments as before' with a cross indicating that the Renters disagree with the agent's assessment that the blinds were working.

(b) Ms Gomez gave evidence that her husband installed a curtain in the living room to overcome the issue with the malfunctioning blind. They could not do so in the kitchen as there was nowhere to hang it.

(c) Ms Sathiyamoorthy says that she believed the blinds were working because they were identified as such when she brought the property at her pre-settlement inspection. She presented no documents in support of this but pointed to photographs taken in the sales campaign showing blinds in place. She did not know when the photographs were taken.

(d) The Renters followed up the repair by email to the previous Property Manager on 16 February 2024.

(e) The Renters' Breach Notice in December 2024 relevantly says;

Blind railing in lounge area has been broken since we moved in. Need replacement.

Blind in kitchen, old and tattered. Does not work properly. Need replacement.

(f) New blinds were installed on 15 January 2025.

1. The Rental Minimum Standards relevantly require that:

each window in a room at the rented premises that is likely to be used as a bedroom or as a living area is to be fitted with a curtain or blind that can be opened or closed by the renter to -

(b) provide reasonable privacy to the renter.[24]

1. The evidence, at its highest, is that the relevant blinds did not move freely on the tracks. That is not the same thing as a blind that does not open or close at all, which is what the Rental Minimum Standards require.
2. The Renters have therefore not proved to the required standard that Ms Sathiyamoorthy breached the requirement to ensure that Rental Minimum Standards were met on the day on which they occupied the rented premises, under section 65A of the Act.
3. However, I do accept that the blinds were not in good repair, as required by section 68 of the Act.
4. A reasonable time to repair the blinds would have been 14 days.
5. I therefore find that Ms Sathiyamoorthy breached her duty to maintain the rented premises in good repair from 23 November 2023.
6. The Renters claim compensation of 2.5% of the rent for 68 weeks. However, the compensation cannot run for this entire period because of the Renters' failure to mitigate their loss.
7. This was a non-urgent repair in respect of which the Renters could have requested an inspection and report by Consumer Affairs Victoria, once it was apparent that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was not going to repair the blinds. The Renters could subsequently have applied to the Tribunal for a Non-urgent Repair Order if, after the report was provided, it was apparent that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was not going to repair the blinds. Had the Renters taken this step, it is unlikely that they would have suffered loss for more than 94 days. This conclusion is based on the following:

(a) It would have been apparent to the Renters by the start of December 2023 that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was not going to fix the blinds (approximately two weeks after the breach commenced).

(b) The Renters could then have requested an inspection by Consumer Affairs Victoria. This may have taken no more than eight weeks.

(c) If the repair remained outstanding, a Non-urgent Repair Application could have been made to the Tribunal, which would likely have been listed for hearing in seven business days (up to ten calendar days depending on when the application was filed).

(d) It is likely that the Tribunal would then have required Ms Sathiyamoorthy to undertake the repairs within two weeks.

1. I accept the Renters' assessment of their loss of amenity and therefore fix compensation at 2.5% of the rent. However, the compensation runs only for 94 days. The amount of compensation proven for this issue is $151.08.

1. In relation to this claim, the following evidence was presented to the Tribunal:

(a) On the Ingoing Condition Report, the Renters have recorded next to the heading 'Pergola', 'gutter connecting to rainwater tank leaking badly. Rainwater not flowing into rainwater tank'.

(b) At the hearing, Ms Gomez gave sworn evidence that, because the gutter was broken, water was draining onto the pergola, which had holes in the roof. Her husband had to scoop and sweep the water after it rained.

(c) The need to repair 'gutters' was mentioned in an email from Ms Gomez to Ms Sathiyamoorthy's previous agent on 16 February 2024.

(d) No photographs were presented to demonstrate the extent or source of the issue.

(e) Ms Sathiyamoorthy disputed the extent of the problem, because nothing was raised with her at the March 2024 inspection and she says that that she stood under the pergola at that time.

(f) The gutters were replaced on 7 February 2025.

1. I am satisfied that the pergola was in need of repair because of the contemporaneous notation made by the Renters on the Ingoing Condition Report. The Director of Consumer Affairs Guidelines on Maintenance state that gutters are the responsibility of a rental provider to maintain. The Ingoing Condition Report placed the rental provider on notice of the need to inspect the gutters, at a minimum.
2. I find that Ms Sathiyamoorthy breached her duty to maintain the rented premises in good repair, under section 68 of the Act.
3. A reasonable time to inspect and repair the pergola gutters and any related damage would have been three weeks. I find therefore that Ms Sathiyamoorthy is in breach of her obligation to maintain the rented premises from 30 November 2023.
4. However, I accept the criticism of Ms Sathiyamoorthy that, without photos, we do not know the extent of the problem.
5. The Renters claim 5% of the rent for 69 weeks. I do not agree with the Renters' assessment of the extent of loss of amenity or the period for which compensation should run.
6. I find that the Renters could have mitigated their loss by requesting an inspection and report by Consumer Affairs Victoria, once it was apparent that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was not going to repair the pergola.
7. They then could have then applied to the Tribunal for a Non-urgent Repair Order if, after the report was provided, it was apparent that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was still declining to repair the pergola.
8. Had the Renters taken this step, it is unlikely that they would have suffered more than 101 days loss. This conclusion is based on the following:

(a) It would have been apparent to the Renters by mid-December 2023 that Ms Sathiyamoorthy was not going to fix the pergola (approximately two weeks after the breach commenced).

(b) The Renters could then have requested an inspection by Consumer Affairs Victoria. This may have taken no more than eight weeks.

(c) If the repair remained outstanding, a Non-urgent Repair Application could have been made to the Tribunal, which would likely have been listed for hearing in seven business days (up to ten calendar days depending on when the application was filed).

(d) It is likely that the Tribunal would then have required Ms Sathiyamoorthy to inspect and repair within three weeks.

1. In relation to the extent of the Renters' loss, the Renters have not proven on the balance of probabilities that they suffered a significant loss of amenity. I have no photos or videos of the problem. I do not accept that use of the pergola was constantly compromised for the period claimed, in view of the evidence that the amenity was only compromised after rain events. Had the loss of amenity been significant, I would have expected there to be contemporaneous evidence that the Renters complained more forcefully about the need for repairs including at routine inspections and in the Breach Notice.
2. I therefore allow compensation in the amount of 2% of the rent for 101 days. This represents the proven extent of the Renters' loss of amenity. It also takes into account that the breach of duty occurred in the summer months and, as such, the pergola would have been affected less by rain events. The total compensation proven is $129.87.

1. The Renters have proven breaches of Ms Sathiyamoorthy's duty to maintain the rented premises in good repair and are, for the foregoing reasons, entitled to compensation of $1,100.57.

THE RENTAL PROVIDER'S APPLICATION FOR A POSSESSION ORDER

1. On 25 June 2025, Ms Good signed a notice to vacate on behalf of Ms Sathiyamoorthy ('Notice'). The Notice was given under section 91ZM of the Act, on the basis that the Renters were in arrears.
2. It was addressed to the Renters, requiring that they vacate the rented premises on or before the termination date of 10 July 2025.
3. The service details were stated as follows:

This notice will be delivered personally, for example by hand

1. The grounds for giving the Notice were stated as follows:

You owe at least 14 days rent. Your rent is paid up to and including 19 March 2025 with $971.30 on account.

You owe $5,692.14. This is the first occasion of non-payment of rent within the current 12-month period.

1. The Renters did not vacate the rented premises in accordance with the Notice or pay the rent said to be owing.
2. On 11 July 2025 Ms Good, on behalf of Ms Sathiyamoorthy, applied to the Tribunal for a possession order. The details of the application were stated as follows:

The renters have failed to pay rent for 92 days. A notice to vacate was issued and personally delivered on the 25th June 2025. RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 1997 - SECT 91ZM. Non-payment of rent. The total amount owing till todays date is $6309.36. Calculation is daily rent $68.58 x 92 days = $6309.36. Seeking possession of the property as there has been no attempt to pay any rent.

1. I explained to the parties at the hearing that the Tribunal must first consider whether the Notice is valid. This means that the Tribunal turns its mind to whether, based on the evidence presented, the Notice was given in the correct form and was served in accordance with the Act.
2. As indicated above at paragraph 118, the Notice stated that it would be delivered personally on the Renters.
3. To prove service of the Notice, Ms Sathiyamoorthy's agents submitted the following document:

1. At the hearing on 4 September 2025, Ms Good gave sworn evidence that she attended the rented premises on 25 June 2025 to serve the Notice. She said that she gave the signed Notice and a copy of the rental ledger to Ms Gomez, who answered the door. She did not see any of the other Renters at home at the time. Ms Good said that she asked Ms Gomez to sign a piece of paper acknowledging receipt of the documents, which Ms Gomez did in her presence.
2. Ms Good attested that she served the application in person because she was in the area, had an inspection to conduct nearby and she hoped that effecting personal service would mean that any possession application could be listed quickly, to be heard and determined alongside other pending Tribunal proceedings.

1. Section 506(3) of the Act contains requirements specifically appliable to service of notices to vacate given to renters (other than residents in Specialist Disability Accommodation, for whom there are different requirements).
2. There are four options available in the case of a residential rental agreement. These are:

(a) 'delivering it personally to the renter' (s 506(3)(a));

(b) 'sending the notice by registered post to the renter' (s 506(3)(b)); ;

(c) 'be electronic communication in accordance with the Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000' (s 506(3)(c)); and

(d) 'in the manner ordered by the Tribunal' (s 506(3)(d)).

1. 'Renter' is a defined term. It relevantly means, 'the person to whom premises are let under a residential rental agreement'.[25]
2. The Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) contains general rules and definitions to help guide the Tribunal and other bodies in understanding and applying laws, including the Act.
3. Section 37(a) of this enactment provides that, unless the contrary intention appears in an Act, 'words in the singular include the plural'.
4. What this means is that:

(a) the word 'person', where used in section 3 of the Act, can mean the 'persons' to whom premises are rented under a residential rental agreement;

(b) the word 'renter', where used in section 506(3) of the Act, means 'the renters' where there is more than one renter to whom a premises is rented under a residential rental agreement;

(c) the renters on whom notice to vacate must be served under section 506(3) of the Act means all of the persons to whom the premises are let under the residential rental agreement; and

(d) in this case, all four members of the Gomez family who are named on the Agreement must be served with any notice to vacate.

1. This approach finds some support in the decision of Senior Member Burdon-Smith in Bedwell v Wantirna Park Estate Pty Ltd (Residential Tenancies) [2018] VCAT 34 ('Bedwell'). In that case, the Senior Member explained the importance of the service requirements in this way:

Section 506(3) is a mandatory provision and sets out the ways that a notice to vacate must be given. The requirements in paragraph (3) differ from other types of notices dealt with in section 506(1) that may be 'served or given' under the Act.

The reason for this difference is the importance of a notice to vacate - and the need for certainty that the notice has been given or received.[26]

1. In Bedwell, the Tribunal was considering whether a notice to vacate was served personally in accordance with section 506(3)(a) of the Act when it was left in the respondent's letterbox.
2. The Senior Member, having referred to previously decided cases, said that 'the Tribunal must be confident that everything that is required has been done' and therefore, found that delivery to a letterbox was not effective personal service.
3. The Tribunal also concluded that the effective informal service rule - where, if an applicant could satisfy the Tribunal that a notice to vacate had been received, it would be good service - does not apply to section 506(3) of the Act because it is a mandatory, not a facultative, provision.[27]

1. It is not in dispute that the other Renters - Irwin Gomez, Nathan I Gomez and Jacintha R Gomez - were not served personally or otherwise with the Notice.
2. Ms Good's evidence was that she believed that service on Ms Gomez was effective service on all Renters because:

(a) Ms Gomez was the main conduit for communication regarding the Agreement;

(b) To this end, on 5 July 2024, Jacintha R Gomez wrote an email to Ms Good's colleague and said,

Please kindly refer all future email and phone contact regarding the rental to my mum.

(c) On 6 June 2025:

(i) in response to an email from Ms Good chasing up the rent arrears, Ms Gomez responded:

I have told you that this is the only email that you are supposed to correspond on.

All current renters listed on the rental agreement are entitled to receive emails from us regarding the rental arrears.

And all current renters are using this email address.

1. Ms Gomez said that she has taken responsibility for communicating with the agency on behalf of her family for ease of communication because she 'takes care of everything'. She said that there is a difference between legal notices and correspondence such that, if the Renters are 'all liable' under the Agreement, then all Renters should be served with the Notice.
2. Finally, Ms Gomez submitted that the proof of service document presented by Ms Good (extrapolated at paragraph 124 above) is fraudulent in that the signature contained thereon is not hers.
3. As a result of my conclusions below, as to the deficiencies with service of the Notice on the Renters other than Ms Gomez, it is not necessary for me to decide whether the proof of service document is a false document. Accordingly, I make no findings in this regard.

1. In my view, it was not for Ms Gomez to direct on behalf of other Renters - even if they were members of her family - where correspondence about the Agreement should be sent, other than in the case of Jacintha Gomez, who had personally authorised the agent in writing to communicate with Ms Gomez in her stead.
2. Even where a renter consents to another renter communicating with a rental provider or agent on their behalf about the Agreement, the rental provider is still required to serve each renter with the notice to vacate because of the strict requirements contained in section 506(3) of the Act.
3. In this regard, Ms Gomez' demand of Ms Good in June 2025 regarding correspondence - and Ms Good's interpretation of it - were not effective to overcome the clear intention of section 506(3) of the Act, which is that every renter who is a party to a residential rental agreement must be served with a notice to vacate.

1. For the reasons provided, I have decided that the Notice was not served in accordance with the requirements of the Act
2. As valid service of a notice to vacate is not proved, the application to the Tribunal is not valid and the Tribunal must dismiss the application.

[1] Ms Gomez initially applied for compensation in her name only. I raised with her that there are four renters named on the rental agreement and that their liability and benefit is joint at law. Ms Gomez therefore agreed to amend the application so that it was brought by all renters: see Mammone v Brochmann (Residential Tenancies) [2020] VCAT 1009 per M Campana (as she then was).

[2] Ms Gomez initially sought leave to amend the application to include a seventh item. However, by the time of the hearing on 14 August 2025, she had made a separate application for repairs in relation to the seventh item. Any compensation claim will therefore be the subject of a claim in that proceeding and so I refused the application to amend in this case.

[3] I heard three other applications concerning these parties on 24 June 2025, prior to commencing the hearing of the application for compensation.

[4] Ms Skinner did not attend the hearing on 4 September 2025.

[5] These Standards are contained in Schedule 4 to the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021 ('Regulations').

[6] Where the residential rental agreement contains a prescribed term, see ss 27C and 68A of the Act.

[7] The required safety-related activities required are set out in Schedule 3 to the Regulations.

[8] Clarke at [17], including the citations therein.

[9] See the decision of the Supreme Court in Sheilds v Deliopoulos [2016] VSC 500.

[10] Boyce v Gao (Residential Tenancies) [2020] VCAT 1404.

[11] May v Homes Victoria (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 548; Wenger v Suwignjo (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 996 ('Wenger').

[13] Section 211(e) of the Act states that, in hearing a claim for compensation, the Tribunal may take into account whether or not action has been taken by the applicant to mitigate their loss or damage. It is the practice of the Tribunal to consider this provision in determining applications for compensation under section 452 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) (see, e.g., Maurer v Sia (Residential Tenancies) [2024] VCAT 571).

[17] It was the subject of a finding and resulted in compensation being awarded to the renters in a previous VCAT Proceeding before a differently constituted Tribunal.

[18] The definition of an 'urgent repair' contained in section 3 of the Act includes the failure or breakdown of any cooling appliance.

[20] As it does not fall within the meaning of the definition of an 'urgent repair' contained in section 3 of the Act.

[22] Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021, Schedule 4, Clause 13.

[23] The Rental Provider submitted photos from the sales campaign for the property from 2023 which give an impression of one aspect of the room, I have no evidence as to when these photographs were taken or by whom.

[24] Residential Tenancies Regulation 2021, Schedule 4, Clause 10.