Grenier v First Choice Realty
[2016] QCATA 111
•29 March 2016
| CITATION: | Grenier v First Choice Realty [2016] QCATA 111 |
| PARTIES: | BENJAMIN GRENIER (Applicant) | |
| v | ||
| FIRST CHOICE REALTY | ||
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL419-15 | |
| MATTER TYPE: | Appeals |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Justice Carmody |
| DELIVERED ON: | 29 March 2016 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | IT IS THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal is refused. | ||
| CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – where the applicant claims the tribunal’s orders invalid – whether notice requirements for repeated breaches met. Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 32 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) s 299 | ||
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”).
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is an application for leave to appeal against the termination of a residential tenancy agreement from 8 October 2015 and eviction warrant.
The applicant claims the orders are invalid because the lessor did not meet the conditions under s 299 Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (“RTRA Act”) for applying to the Tribunal for repeated breaches.
Ordinarily, a lessor cannot issue a Form 12 (Notice to Leave) if the Form 11 (Notice to Remedy Breach) has been complied with but under s 299 a lessor can apply to terminate without the need for a Form 12 if there are two remedied breaches followed by a third breach all happening within 12 months.[1]
[1] Twelve months is the period prescribed under s 299(1)(e) – see regulation 25.
The intention of this mechanism is to stop tenants stalling and manipulating the system.
The material shows that four notices to remedy breach were issued between 27 July 2015 and 17 September 2015 and that the applicant was constantly in arrears in that period.
The Tribunal orders are therefore valid.
0
0
2