COMMISSIONER for SOCIAL HOUSING in the ACT & CHESHER and LOCKWOOD (Residential Tenancies)

The case involved the Commissioner for Social Housing in the ACT, who was the applicant, and the respondents, Mr Chesher and Ms Lockwood. The dispute centred around the applicants' request for a Conditional Termination and Possession Order, following the respondents' failure to comply with previous orders for payment of rental arrears and for possession. The matter was heard by the Tribunal on 18 January 2013. The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondents had made sufficient efforts to pay the outstanding rental arrears and whether the Tribunal should grant the requested termination and possession order. The Tribunal needed to weigh the evidence and submissions provided by both parties to determine if the respondents had a viable plan to settle their debts and if granting the order would be appropriate.

The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the parties, particularly focusing on the respondents' attempts to resolve their financial situation. The respondents argued that they had pending payments from an income tax refund and a Centrelink debt repayment that they intended to use to settle the arrears. Additionally, the respondents mentioned that Mr Chesher was in the process of selling his car to raise further funds. The Tribunal also took into account Mr Chesher's efforts to resolve his driver's licence issues and his intention to return to work, which would improve his financial situation. The Tribunal found that while the respondents had made some efforts to address their arrears, these efforts were not sufficient to warrant a postponement of the termination and possession order. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents' plans, while potentially helpful in the future, did not constitute a timely resolution of the current arrears.

In light of the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal determined that the requested Conditional Termination and Possession Order should be granted. The order was to take effect as a warrant for eviction, as requested by the applicant. The Tribunal acknowledged the respondents' efforts but found them insufficient to prevent the order from being made. The order was conditional, providing the respondents with an opportunity to pay the arrears before the eviction warrant was executed. This decision balanced the need for the applicant to recover the outstanding rental payments with the respondents' efforts to resolve their financial difficulties. The Tribunal's decision provided clarity on the grounds for the Conditional Termination and Possession Order, ensuring that both parties understood the reasons behind the Tribunal's ruling.