Carlisle v Griffiths

[2006] SADC 119

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil)

CARLISLE v GRIFFITHS

[2006] SADC 119

Judgment of His Honour Judge Boylan

29 September 2006

LANDLORD AND TENANT - RENT

Appellant rented a house for 7 years at $160 per week - respondent owner of house - house was in poor condition - respondent asked appellant to leave within 60 days - appellant left after 60 days - Residential Tenancies Tribunal ordered appellant should receive $640 by way of compensation - appellant appealed decision of Tribunal that he should have received more compensation - respondent cross-appealed that appellant left house in disgraceful condition - order made under Housing Improvement Act 1940 reducing rent to $104.

Held:  Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

CARLISLE v GRIFFITHS
[2006] SADC 119

1. Mr Carlisle rented a house at Hillcrest for about seven years.   Ms Griffiths owned the house and her agents were Raine & Horne.  The rent never changed:  it was always $160 per week.  The house was in poor condition and I have no doubt that the owner allowed it to deteriorate.  That is hardly surprising as she had bought it as an investment property, always intending to demolish it. 

2. Early in 2006, Ms Griffiths decided that the time had come to demolish the house.  Accordingly, Raine & Horne served upon Mr Carlisle a notice that he was to leave the house within 60 days.  He did not want to leave.

3. At about the same time, Mr Carlisle complained that the house was not being properly maintained.  In particular, he complained that the stove was not working.  He stopped paying the rent.  He last paid rent for the period up to the 23^rd of March 2006.  He left the house on the 22^nd of July 2006.  Ms Griffiths, of course, wants her rent for that period.

4. The parties ended up arguing about their differences before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.  The Tribunal noted that Mr Carlisle owed Ms Griffiths $2,811.00.  But it decided that, owing to the poor condition of the house, Mr Carlisle should be allowed some compensation.  Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered that Mr Carlisle receive $640 by way of compensation  for Ms Griffith’s failure to maintain the premises.  In other words, the Tribunal allowed a credit of $640.  That is equal to four week’s rent.   Mr Carlisle has appealed to this court arguing that he should have been allowed greater credit.  Ms Griffiths, with leave from me, has cross appealed.  She says that Mr Carlisle left the premises in such a disgraceful condition that she had to pay $450 to have them cleaned before the house could be demolished.

5. There was a further complication which arose shortly before Mr Carlisle left the premises.  An order was made pursuant to the Housing Improvement Act 1940 declaring that the house was substandard.  As a result of that order, and a few weeks after Mr Carlisle left, the maximum rent was fixed at $104 per week.  Mr Carlisle now says that he should never have been obliged to pay $160 a week.

6. The effect of the order pursuant to the Housing Improvement Act, that the maximum rent which could be charged for the house is $104 a week, is not retrospective.  On the other hand, I am of the view that I am entitled to use that figure as a guideline in deciding whether or not the compensation paid to Mr Carlisle is adequate.  In my view, the amount of compensation ordered by the Tribunal was appropriate.  The effect of the Tribunal’s order was that Mr Carlisle was given a credit for nearly one quarter of the rent he originally owed for the period between the 23^rd of March and the 22^nd of July 2006.  It is a comforting coincidence that, when the housing authority fixed the maximum rent some weeks after the Tribunal made its decision, the Authority reduced the rent by about 25%.  In my view, the Tribunal’s decision was a fair and just one.  I reject Mr Carlisle’s suggestion that he should be entitled to a further reduction on account of the poor condition of the house for all of the years he lived there.  Until March 2003, he had never complained about the rent.  I accept what Mr Pacillo, from Raine & Horne, told me that $160 per week is cheap rent in Hillcrest. 

7. I dismiss Mr Carlisle’s appeal. 

8. That leaves the cross-appeal.  Ms Griffiths argues that the amount of compensation paid to Mr Carlisle should be further reduced owing to the disgraceful state in which he left the premises.  She told me that she had to pay $450 to have them cleaned up.  It appears from the photographs I saw that the premises were definitely left in a disgraceful state.  But there is a problem in that Ms Griffiths was unable to enter the premises to inspect them until some time after Mr Carlisle had left.  In those circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that he is responsible for the mess.   Accordingly, the cross-appeal is also dismissed.