Adhikari & Anor v Walshe & Ors (Residential Tenancies)
[2022] ACAT 67
•25 July 2022
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ADHIKARI & ANOR v WALSHE & ORS (Residential Tenancies)
[2022] ACAT 67
RT 1058/2021
Catchwords: RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – premises let to three tenants – one tenant not resident and identified as guarantor – tenants abandoned premises and left with rent owing and premises damaged – whether liabilities of guarantor different from those of other tenants – whether guarantor’s action to remove herself as guarantor relieved her of liabilities as tenant – whether lessors’ actions reduced liabilities of guarantor – rental arrears and compensation
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 47A, 56
Residential Tenancies Act 1997 ss 6AA, 8, 15, 16, 20 35A, 35D, 35G, 36, 61, 63, 72, 79, 83, standard terms 2, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 63, 64, 72A
Cases cited: Xia v Wang & Bian [2009] ACAT 21
List of
Texts/Papers cited: Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 3rd ed, 2004)
Tribunal: Senior Member M Hyman
Date of Orders: 25 July 2022
Date of Reasons for Decision: 25 July 2022
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) RT 1058/2021
BETWEEN:
NABIN ADHIKARI
First Applicant/Lessor
NIYANTA ADHIKARI
Second Applicant/Lessor
AND:
SAMANTHA WALSHE
First Respondent/Tenant
JOSHUA POWELL
Second Respondent/Tenant
KYLIE COOPER
Third Respondent/Tenant
TRIBUNAL:Senior Member M Hyman
DATE:25 July 2022
ORDER
The Tribunal declares that the residential tenancy ended on 21 December 2021.
The Tribunal orders that:
1.The third respondent/tenant is to pay $320 to the lessors in compensation for unpaid rent.
2.The tenants are to pay the lessors compensation of $16,629.58, consisting of:
(a)$8,988.57 in unpaid rent;
(b)$7,641.01 in repairs and cleaning, comprising:
(i) $3,365 for replacing carpet;
(ii) $335 for remounting the dryer;
(iii) $390 for replacing one internal wall;
(iv) $1,800 for repairing and repainting walls;
(v) $694.66 for refitting a glass door and repairing or replacing brackets, window frames and door handles;
(vi) $860 for cleaning; and
(vii) $196.35 for removing and disposing of furniture and other items left on the premises.
3.The amounts specified in orders 1 and 2 are to be paid by four weeks from the date of this order.
………………………………..
Senior Member M Hyman
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1.The application before the Tribunal is for compensation that the lessors claim is owed to them by the tenants. The three tenants entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the lessors in July 2020. Ms Cooper, who is the mother of Mr Powell, is described on the tenancy agreement as ‘guarantor’ and did not live at the rented premises. In August 2021 the tenants began to fall behind in the rent. The lessors, through their agent, issued notices to remedy and, not having received the arrears of rent, issued a notice to vacate and subsequently applied to this tribunal for a termination and possession order. The tenants did not at first vacate, but subsequently abandoned the premises, with the rental arrears still unpaid. The lessors’ agents discovered substantial damage at the property after the abandonment. The lessors have applied to the tribunal for the unpaid rent and for compensation for repairs and cleaning.
2.The matter came before me on 2 June 2022. The lessors were represented by their agents, Ms Mae Bajouri and Ms Arti Delaney. Ms Cooper, who lives in Queensland, appeared by telephone. Neither Ms Walshe nor Mr Powell appeared, nor did either respond to attempts to make contact by telephone. The file disclosed various attempts to make contact with Ms Walshe and Mr Powell; material posted to them in late December 2021 was returned to the tribunal; mobile telephone numbers were available for both, as well as email addresses, and the tribunal also drew on Ms Cooper’s email address for substituted service. Given the contact that had taken place, and the abandonment of the premises, I formed the conclusion that every effort had been made to provide Ms Walshe and Mr Powell with adequate notice, but that it was more probable than not that they had chosen to absent themselves from the hearing. Accordingly, I proceeded to hear the matter in their absence.[1]
[1] Section 47A of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 allows a matter to be heard in a party’s absence; that party may subsequently apply to the Tribunal for any order made in their absence to be set aside under section 56 of the same Act
3.The papers before me comprised the records of the agents with regard to the premises in question, with copies of the rental ledger, notices to the tenants, incoming and outgoing inspection reports and quotes and invoices from contractors engaged to repair damage and clean the premises after their abandonment. There were also copies of emails and text messages among the parties at various stages of the tenancy.
4.At the hearing Ms Cooper stated that in August 2021, she had attempted to have herself removed as guarantor under the tenancy agreement, and that an exchange of emails with the lessor’s agents would provide evidence of this. Ms Cooper’s disengagement from the premises so as no longer to be liable for rent or damage could clearly have an effect on the orders that I might make. Accordingly, after hearing evidence I adjourned the matter, allowed a week for Ms Cooper to provide relevant material, and a further week for the lessors to provide any material in response, with a view to then deciding the matter on the papers. This decision and these reasons are the outcome.
Issues
5.The issues before the Tribunal for decision are:
(a)whether the tenants owe arrears of rent, and if so the amount owed;
(b)whether the tenants owe compensation to the lessors for cleaning of and repairs to the property, and if so, the amount owed; and
(c)whether Ms Cooper escapes liability for all or part of any amounts owed.
The legal framework
6.The Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (the RTA) contains a number of provisions that bear upon the present circumstances. The provisions in the RTA itself are reinforced and supplemented by the standard terms set out in Schedule 1 of that Act; these terms form the contract between lessor and tenant.
7.A tenancy may be fixed term or periodic; a fixed term agreement is taken to contain the standard terms as in force at the time of its commencement; a periodic tenancy contains the standard terms in force from time to time (and that applies to the periodic tenancy that begins on the expiry of a fixed term).[2] As consideration for a right to occupy premises, a lessor may only accept rent or a bond;[3] the word ‘bond’ is taken to include a guarantee, and a guarantee can take the place of a bond, or can make up the bond to the maximum amount allowed.[4] The bond, guarantee or bond and guarantee together may not exceed the first four weeks’ rent.[5]
[2]Residential Tenancies Act 1997, section 8(1) and (3)
[3] Residential Tenancies Act 1997, section 15
[4] Residential Tenancies Act 1997, section 15(4) and 16
[5] Residential Tenancies Act 1997, section 16 and 20
8.Under the RTA, a person who is one of two or more people under a residential tenancy agreement is a co-tenant.[6] Section 35A of the RTA sets out detailed procedures whereby a co-tenant can leave a residential tenancy agreement part way through the tenancy. The leaving co-tenant must give notice in writing to the lessor and the other co-tenants at least 21 days before their departure from the tenancy; if the lessor and the other co-tenants do not respond, they are taken to consent, and the leaving co-tenant’s participation in the tenancy agreement comes to an end.[7]
[6] Residential Tenancies Act 1997, section 6AA
[7] It is also possible for lessor or co-tenants to apply to this Tribunal for resolution of a co-tenancy dispute: Residential Tenancies Act 1997, sections 35D and 35G
9.The RTA provides that a tenancy agreement may only terminate in certain specified circumstances; one specified circumstance is where the tenants have abandoned the premises.[8] If premises are abandoned, the tenancy terminates on the day of abandonment.[9]
[8] Residential Tenancies Act 1997, section 36(1)(f)
[9] Residential Tenancies Act 1997, section 61
10.This tribunal has broad powers in respect of residential tenancy disputes, including a general power to order payment of an amount to a person, and a more specific power to order the payment of compensation for loss of rent or other loss caused by a breach of a residential tenancy agreement.[10]
[10] Residential Tenancies Act 1997, section 83(1)(c) and (d)
11.Schedule 1 to the RTA contains the standard residential tenancy terms that make up the contract between lessor and tenant.[11] Lessor and tenant are bound by the standard terms.[12] The tenants are obliged to pay their rent on time,[13] to take care of the premises during the tenancy,[14] and to leave the premises at the end of the tenancy in substantially the same condition as at the start, apart from fair wear and tear.[15]
[11] The RTA provides in sections 8-10 for different or additional terms to appear in the contract, but those provisions have not been resorted to in the present matter.
[12] Residential Tenancies Act 1997, standard terms 2
[13]Residential Tenancies Act 1997, standard terms 26
[14]Residential Tenancies Act 1997, standard terms 63
[15]Residential Tenancies Act 1997, standard terms 64
The evidence
12.The following is taken largely from the documentation provided by the lessors’ agents, including the signed residential tenancy agreement between the parties. The lessors entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the three tenants on 9 July 2020. The tenancy was for a fixed term of twelve months to 11 July 2021, then converting to a periodic tenancy. Ms Cooper is identified in the tenancy agreement as ‘guarantor’ (although for reasons that are explained below she is nevertheless referred to as a tenant or co-tenant in this decision). The rent was set at $1,040 fortnightly.
13.It appears that the tenancy proceeded smoothly for the fixed term, so much so that the lessors offered to renew the fixed term tenancy; but around the beginning of August 2021 the tenants began to fall behind in their rent and very soon stopped paying rent completely, the last payment being on 13 August 2021. A notice to remedy was sent to the tenants on 4 August 2021, with further notices on 13 September and 19 November 2021. There were brief email messages from Ms Walshe (on 25 October 2021) and Mr Powell (on 28 October and 25 November 2021) in which various promises to pay the arrears of rent were made, but no payment seems to have occurred.
14.In a letter of 11 November 2021 to all three tenants the lessors’ agents advised that if the tenants did not pay their rent and arrears the lessors would apply to this tribunal for a termination and possession order. Having received no payments, the lessors issued a notice to vacate on 26 November 2021, and lodged a termination and possession application on 16 December 2021, seeking $9,360 and the filing fee of $165. At the hearing the lessors’ agents said that the property was still occupied on 15 December 2021, but on 11 January 2022 it was vacant.
15.The lessors’ application for a termination and possession order came before the Tribunal on 19 January 2022. By this time the lessors were aware that the premises had been abandoned. The Tribunal ordered that the entirety of the bond be released to the lessors (for reasons that are unclear the bond set in the residential tenancy agreement was $2,080, which is four weeks’ rent, but the lessors’ application lists the bond lodged with ACT Rental Bonds as $1,760 and the ledger shows that that was the amount released to the lessors). The Tribunal also listed the applicants’ claims for rental arrears and compensation to be considered at a preliminary conference. At that conference the Tribunal made orders for an amended application to be lodged with supporting material, making provision also for the respondents to lodge any material on which they wished to rely. The applicants lodged an amended application on 26 March 2022, seeking $16,949.58 in compensation, made up of $9,308.57 in rental arrears and $7,641.01 in compensation for cleaning of, and repairs to, the premises.
16.The lessors’ agents advanced documentary evidence setting out the damage to the property after the lessors had resumed possession. Briefly, there were holes in some walls and significant marking and damage to painted surfaces; the clothes dryer was off its mountings; the glass door needed fixing and brackets, window frames and door handles needed repairing or replacing; carpet in a large part of the property was stained and damaged; the property was generally dirty; and some of the tenants’ furniture had been left behind.
Ms Cooper’s role as guarantor
17.Ms Cooper contended that in August 2021, she had made it clear to the lessors’ agents that she wished to be removed as guarantor, and that her attempt should absolve her from liability for some if not all of the costs associated with the unpaid rent and the damage to the property. Ms Cooper provided a copy of an email sent on 1 August 2021 in which she explained that she had discovered that her son, Mr Powell, had been remanded in custody; that he had broken up with his partner, Ms Walshe; that a workmate of her son had moved into the premises and would take Ms Walshe’s place on the tenancy agreement; that Ms Walshe was leaving the premises or had left them; and that once released Mr Powell wished to resume his place in the premises, sharing them with his workmate. In the circumstances, Ms Cooper said in her email, she did not think she should continue to act as guarantor.
18.The lessors’ agents did not respond to Ms Cooper’s email. In submissions following the hearing they said that in July 2021 they were intending to renew the fixed term tenancy, but once the rent started falling behind, that course of action was no longer attractive. They had received Ms Cooper’s message of 1 August 2021, but had not agreed to her removal from the tenancy agreement, since her role as guarantor gave the lessors some security as the rent fell behind.
19.Ms Cooper noted that she had not been kept informed of matters relating to the tenancy. She had received no communications whatsoever for the year of the fixed term, and then the rental arrears had been allowed to climb to 14 weeks before she was contacted. Ms Cooper said that she had not seen or inspected the property, the tenancy had not been extended, and there was no legal basis for her to have a continuing responsibility for the property.
Consideration
How much is owed in rent and repairs?
20.The lessors have put forward extracts from the rental ledger showing the amount owed in rent. The fortnightly rent was $1,040 and the last payment of rent was in August 2021; the ledger extract shows that rent was paid up to 16 August 2021. Rent from that time to 11 January 2022 was $11,068.57, reduced to $9,308.57 by the release of the $1,760 in bond. The amount owed was not contested. I accept that the tenants abandoned the premises, and that by 11 January 2022 $9,308.57 was owing in rent.
21.Section 63 of the RTA allows a lessor to claim three weeks’ rent from tenants who abandon a property during a periodic tenancy; in this instance there is a substantial gap between when the property is known to have been occupied (15 December 2021) and when it was known to be abandoned (11 January 2022). The lessors have not claimed the three weeks rent provided for in section 63, perhaps in recognition that abandonment may have occurred earlier than 11 January 2022. Papers sent to the tenants by post by the tribunal on 21 December 2021 were returned unopened. In all the circumstances, I am encouraged to declare the premises abandoned from 21 December 2021, so that the three weeks rent arising from abandonment means that rent is owed up to 11 January 2022.
22.The lessors presented ingoing and outgoing inspection reports and photographic materials establishing the need for repairs and cleaning. They itemised the repairs and cleaning of the premises as follows: $3,365 to replace the carpet that was damaged and stained; $335 to put the dryer back on its mountings; $390 for replacing a gyprock wall; $1,800 for repairing damaged walls and repainting; $694.66 for refitting a sliding glass door, repairing and replacing brackets, fixing window frames and reattaching or replacing door handles; $860 for cleaning; and $196.35 for removing and disposing of furniture left in the premises. The total of these amounts comes to $7,641.01. An invoice was available for each of the above expenses. The amounts were not contested by Ms Cooper.
23.Neither Mr Powell nor Ms Walshe was present to take issue with these figures. The lessor’s case has no contradictor. Nevertheless, the evidence available to me is reasonably persuasive, and the figures put forward appear well founded. The compensation owed to the lessors is $9,308.57 in arrears of rent and $7,641.01 in repairs and cleaning, totalling $16,949.58.
Does Ms Cooper escape liability?
24.Much of Ms Cooper’s argument regarding her liability as guarantor, and her attempts to bring that liability to an end, is misconceived. Ms Cooper signed the tenancy agreement; the rights and obligations she took on as a result are those of a tenant, because, despite her being listed as a ‘guarantor’, the rights and obligations are those set out in the agreement. The tenancy agreement consists of a schedule of items, of which item 15 states that the standard terms of the RTA apply; and item 16 states that “Where the tenancy consists of more than one person, the covenants and obligations to be observed and performed by the tenants shall bind them jointly and each of them severally”. It must be doubted whether the appearance of the word ‘guarantor’ in the schedule is of any legal effect, since the terms and conditions that apply to the parties to the tenancy agreement are those of the RTA, and these apply equally to all those signing.
25.I am prevented by the parol evidence rule from taking into account any evidence that the parties might have presented at the hearing about how Cooper’s identification as ‘guarantor’ would affect the meaning of the tenancy agreement: the parol evidence rule requires that a contract be construed on the basis of its terms, uninfluenced by the intentions or beliefs of the parties.
26.Ms Cooper therefore had the rights and obligations of a tenant, including an obligation to pay the rent and to maintain the premises, just as Ms Walshe and Mr Powell did. Any understanding – express or implied – that Ms Walshe and Mr Powell would pay the rent, occupy the premises and maintain them, and Ms Cooper’s role as guarantor would only come to life if they defaulted, as the role of guarantor would imply, lay outside the tenancy agreement, as a separate arrangement or contract. Nothing in the tenancy agreement, beyond the identification of Ms Cooper as guarantor, creates any difference in rights and obligations between Ms Cooper on the one hand and Ms Walshe and Mr Powell on the other; none of the terms support or distinguish Ms Cooper’s special place as guarantor.
27.The RTA limits payments that may be required of a tenant as consideration for the right to occupy premises. Section 15 states that a lessor may only require or accept a bond or rent; section 16 allows a guarantee or indemnity to replace a bond wholly or partly, and section 20 limits bond, guarantee or the two together to four weeks’ rent. In Xia v Wang & Bian[16] Senior Member Anforth noted that in that case an attempt by the lessors to have the tenant’s parents guarantee payment of rent was inconsistent with the RTA; it was an attempt to obtain additional consideration, contrary to section 15. In the present matter the guarantee offered by Ms Cooper falls into the same category. The guarantee is a collateral contract, that is, it is a contract in which the consideration by the party receiving the guarantee is entry into another contract.[17] Here the lessor entered into the tenancy agreement buttressed by the additional security provided by Ms Cooper’s guarantee; so much was plain from Ms Cooper’s evidence at the hearing, and was confirmed by the lessors’ agents comment that they refrained from agreeing to Ms Cooper’s withdrawal from the guarantee because of the security it provided with regard to payment of the rental arrears that were now appearing. To the extent that the guarantee goes beyond the $320 difference between the maximum of four weeks rent allowed by section 20 for bond and guarantee combined and the $1,760 actually paid as a bond, it is unlawful.
[16][2009] ACAT 21 at [76]
[17]Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (Lexis Nexis Butterworths, 3rd ed,2004)
28.The email exchange between Ms Cooper and the lessors’ agents suggests that Ms Cooper believes that when the lessors explored the possibility of extending the fixed term tenancy, in July 2021, this implied that the existing tenancy came to an end unless specifically renewed in some way. That is not the case. The tenancy agreement signed in July 2020 specified that the tenancy would operate as a fixed term agreement for twelve months and then revert to a three-week-by-three-week periodic tenancy. The lessors explored the possibility of extending the fixed term, and if they had proceeded to do so, that would have required a new tenancy agreement and each tenant would have signed that new agreement; but the lessors chose not to follow that course once the rent fell behind, and the tenancy proceeded as a periodic tenancy, with all three tenants still sharing liability for rent and for maintaining the premises.
29.Taking the above into account, Ms Cooper’s argument that she should escape liability may be understood as a contention that her email of 1 August 2021 was a request by one of three co-tenants to leave a periodic tenancy. The detailed provisions relating to co-tenants in Part 3A of the RTA came into effect on 3 March 2021, so they did not apply under the fixed term tenancy; but when it transitioned to a periodic tenancy the effect of section 8(1)(a)(ii) of the RTA is that Part 3A now applied. Ms Cooper sent her email after the periodic tenancy had commenced, and to succeed she needs to have met the requirements of section 35A, which sets out the rules governing how a co-tenant may leave a tenancy. The section requires that a co-tenant make an application and obtain either the consent of the lessor and the other co-tenants, or an order from this tribunal. The application to leave must be in writing, and made at least 21 days before the day the co-tenant intends to leave the tenancy. In a periodic tenancy the lessor and remaining co-tenants must not unreasonably refuse consent, and they are taken to consent if they do not, within 21 days of receiving the application, either respond to the leaving co-tenant or apply to this tribunal for an order refusing consent.
30.The provisions in section 35A are quite prescriptive, and Ms Cooper is not legally trained, nor can she be expected to have a close knowledge of the RTA. Tenants in her position are more likely to be aware of the requirements for leaving a co-tenancy because standard term 72A, which repeats the essence of section 35A of the Act, was added to Schedule 1 of the RTA when that Act was amended by the addition of the co-tenancy provisions in Part 3A; but Ms Cooper signed a tenancy agreement that preceded the amendments to the Act and therefore did not include standard term 72A (although that term is taken to be included in her tenancy agreement from the time the tenancy transitioned from fixed to periodic). Further, Ms Cooper was perhaps labouring under the misconception that she was not a tenant, and so was unlikely to have taken note of any provisions relating to co-tenants.
31.In the circumstances, I would be inclined to take a generous view of any attempt by Ms Cooper to leave the co-tenancy. The critical sentences of her 1 August 2021 email read as follows:
Samantha [Walshe] and Joshua [Powell] separated and a work mate of Joshua’s had moved in. I said at this point that I would contact you (as they should too) to inform you of the change and that I felt that I should not be required to remain “guarantor” on the property for any further renewal as they had held the tenancy for a year and I would discuss with you the option of removing myself from the lease.
32.On the face of it this is a message raising the issue and foreshadowing further action by Ms Cooper to extricate herself from the tenancy; the lessors, or more relevantly their agents, did not respond to the message, although by staying silent they risked being seen to have given consent by default, after three weeks, under section 35A(4) of the RTA. But even if a broad and generous view of the email is taken, so that it is regarded as a consent application by a co-tenant intending to leave in 21 days’ time, Ms Cooper would also need to have gone through the same process with her son and Ms Walshe, and obtained their express or implied consent. I do not have satisfactory evidence before me that this occurred; the passage quoted above suggests that some contact had occurred, but it would be reading far too much into Ms Cooper’s words to conclude that she had made a proposal to both Ms Walshe and Mr Powell in terms that enlivened their obligation to respond under section 35A(4). I have not heard evidence from either of Ms Walshe or Mr Powell. I am unable to conclude that Ms Cooper did what was needed to have herself released from the tenancy.
Do the lessors owe compensation to Ms Cooper?
33.Ms Cooper raised at the time, and reiterated at the hearing, that the lessors’ agents had not kept her informed of the position with regard to rental arrears, and had allowed those arrears to rise to a high level before involving her. She stated that the agents had not communicated with her at all for the entire period of twelve months while the fixed term tenancy agreement was in operation, but at the time of transition to a periodic tenancy the agents asked her about renewing the fixed term tenancy, on 26 July 2021; sent her a copy of a notice to remedy on 4 August 2021, for one weeks’ rent; advised her about a routine inspection on 9 and 17 August 2021; and then were silent until the rent was 14 weeks in arrears. Ms Cooper appears to have taken the view that this was inconsistent with her role as guarantor. Although it was not pressed as a claim for compensation, I am willing to examine whether the exclusion of Ms Cooper from the information flow within the tenancy might found an argument that the lessors breached the tenancy agreement so that her share of the compensation that the tenants might now owe should be at least reduced.
34.As a tenant, it would be reasonable for Ms Cooper to have an expectation that she be kept informed by the lessors of matters relating to the tenancy, and especially relating to financial liabilities within the tenancy as a whole. Standard terms 29-31 oblige the lessor to provide receipts to tenants under certain circumstances, but standard term 32 provides that where rent is paid into an account nominated by the lessor or agent, as here, no receipt is required. I can see in the RTA no other obligation upon the lessors to keep Ms Cooper informed, beyond those that obtain at the start of the tenancy (such as providing a copy of the tenancy agreement). But when the agents sent Ms Cooper a copy of a notice to remedy on 4 August 2021, they were putting her on notice that there was an issue with rental arrears, even if the amount was small at that time. That surely should have prompted Ms Cooper to speak to her son, and possibly to Ms Walshe, to determine where things stood, and to monitor any further rental shortfalls. I do not think there is any basis for discounting Ms Cooper’s share of the debt owed.
35.It is tolerably clear, as noted above, that Ms Cooper had an imperfect understanding of the application of the RTA and its standard terms, and of her rights and obligations as a party to the tenancy agreement. It appears that the lessors’ agents may also have not completely understood how the tenancy agreement applied to Ms Cooper, and to the extent they did understand various aspects, they were less than thorough and conscientious in keeping her informed. The agents may not have had a legal obligation to inform Ms Cooper that the rental arrears were mounting over the period of September-November 2021, but it would seem that, as a matter of common sense and courtesy, it would have been appropriate for them to have done so.
Conclusion
36.The three co-tenants owe compensation to the lessors for unpaid rent and for repairs and cleaning, as set out above. Compensation of $16,949.58 must be paid by the tenants, comprising $9,308.57 for arrears of rent and $7,641.01 for repairs and cleaning. Ms Cooper, as she does not escape that part of the guarantee that remains lawful, is responsible for the first $320 of the debt, and, in accordance with the schedule to the tenancy agreement, the three tenants are jointly and severally liable for the remainder.
………………………………..
Senior Member M Hyman
Date(s) of hearing: 13 May 2022
Applicant: Ms M Bajouri & Ms A Delaney, authorised representative Respondent: In person