May v Bannan (Residential Tenancies)
[2009] ACAT 1
•5 March 2009
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: Jurgen MAY & Mary-Jo MAY –v- Anna BANNAN (Residential Tenancies) [2009] ACAT 1 (5 March 2009)
RT 49 of 2009
Catchwords: RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – Leases and tenancy agreements - fixed term tenancy - rent increase
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – Leases and tenancy agreements - posting clause – whether parties agree to posting clause or not
Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT)
Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (NSW)Parker v Woodham [2008] ACTRTT 2
Hart & Freeburn v Norton [2000] ACTRTT 9A. Anforth & P. Christensen, Residential Tenancies Law and Practice: New South Wales 4th Edition (2008), The Federation Press, Sydney
Residential Tenancies Bill 1997 (ACT) explanatory memorandum
The Community Law Reform Committee of the Australian Capital Territory, Report No 8: Private Residential Tenancy Law (ACT Attorney General’s Department, Canberra 1994)
Tribunal:Bill Stefaniak, President
Date: 5 March 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) RT 49 of 2009
JURGEN MAY and MARY-JO MAY
(Applicant/Tenants)
AND
ANNA BANNAN
(Respondent/Landlord)
DECISION
- The applicants have to vacate the property on or before 1 September 2009 and the tenancy will terminate on that day
- A final inspection will be arranged at a reasonable time before that date to enable the applicants to receive any bond monies due to them prior to, or on, 1 September 2009.
- If the applicants organise to leave the property prior to 1 September 2009 they are to advise the respondent and vacate the premises within 14 days of giving such notice to ensure all the necessary arrangements can be made as to final inspections, cessation of rent payment and return of bond monies.
- The increase in rent be allowed but is to apply from 1 September 2008
- The amount of $14.28 is to be refunded to the applicant within 28 days
…………………………….
Bill Stefaniak, President
5 March 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) RT 49 of 2009
JURGEN MAY and MARY-JO MAY
(Applicant/Tenants)
AND
ANNA BANNAN
(Respondent/Landlord)
REASONS FOR DECISION
This matter raises several issues: (1) whether a rent increase can take effect 12 months into a two year fixed-term tenancy; (2) whether a posting clause which was in the schedule, but was not ticked, was valid and/or operative; and (3) whether the lessor (respondent) can rely on the hardship provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT) (the Act) to terminate the tenancy early.
The residence in question is a three bedroom unit located in Gordon, ACT (the unit). It is owned by Mrs Anna Bannan, the respondent, who has a two thirds share in the unit, and Mrs Myvelt, Mrs Bannan’s 80 year old mother, who has a one third share in the unit.
Mrs Myvelt lived at the unit for three or four years until early 2007. Her son, (Mrs Bannan’s brother), who lives in Batlow about half his time, would spend the other half of his time in Canberra working, or looking for work. He would live at the unit with his mother when he was in Canberra.
The current tenants, Mr and Mrs May are excellent tenants and it is not disputed between the parties that the unit is in excellent condition. The only issues between the parties relate to whether the rent could be increased from $290 to $340 part way through a two year fixed-term lease and whether Mrs Bannan and her family could re-occupy the premises pursuant to the posting clause.
I shall deal first with the issue of the rent increase.
Whilst there was some initial discussion in relation to whether the rent increase was excessive or not, it was conceded by the tenants that $340 per week was not an unreasonable amount to pay for the unit given that they had been looking for alternative premises in late 2008 and could find nothing in that price range which was nearly as good as the premises that they currently occupy.
I note that the increase is some $20 over and above the standard formula but when one takes into account the value and quality of other properties being rented in the area, as per the tenants own admission, as well as the present economic status of the rental market, it would seem in the circumstances that the increase came from a low base and, even with an above average increase, that the tenants are not paying an unreasonable amount per week.
Accordingly, for that reason, and the fact that it was not pressed at the hearing, I do not feel the need to decide whether the increase of $50 per week was excessive.
Mrs Bannan issued a notice to the tenants on 10 June 2008 informing them that she intended to increase the rent to $340 per week. There was evidence given at the hearing of a conversation by phone about the tenants’ unhappiness at a rent increase. As far as they were concerned, because of the two year fixed term, no rent increase was acceptable and the rent of $290 per week agreed to at the start of the fixed-term lease should remain for the whole of that term.
10. After the discussions the tenants indicated that they would pay the increased amount, which they proceeded to do from 30 August 2008. However the schedule of their lease was not effective until 1 September 2007 and, as stipulated in clause 35, the rent could not be increased less than 12 months from the beginning of the tenancy agreement. Therefore a small readjustment needs to be made.
11. The May’s, and the real estate agent who was assisting them, Mr Darryl Saxon, the principal of Lanyon Real Estate, indicated that the only live issue in relation to the rent was the fact that the rent had been fixed for two years as per the tenancy agreement. Mr Saxon and, through him, the tenants, relied on a decision by my learned colleague, Mr Anforth, in the matter of Parker v Woodham [2008] ACTRTT 2, handed down on 28 February 2008.
12. The facts in that case are very similar to this one; the landlord attempted to increase the rent partway through a 24 month fixed-term lease. In that matter Mr Anforth decided that as there was no written provision within the agreement for a rent increase during the fixed term, the rent increase was unlawful.
13. Mr Anforth favoured the view that if there was a two year fixed-term the rent could not be increased during those two years. He listed a number of arguments for both views but he was unable to cite any useful authority on this particular issue. He noted that the legislation in New South Wales is quite clear on this issue however in the ACT ‘[t]he Act and prescribed terms are silent on the issue of whether the rent is to remain fixed during the whole of the fixed term of a lease’ (at [25]). This is a very important point which I will deal with further
14. Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (NSW) is quite clear, stating:
(4)The rent payable by a tenant under a residential tenancy agreement that creates a tenancy for a fixed term shall not be increased during the currency of the term unless the amount of the increase, or a method for calculating the amount of the increase, is set out in the agreement.
(5) A rent increase (including a rent increase permitted under subsection or provided for in any other residential tenancy agreement) is not payable by a tenant under a residential tenancy agreement unless the rent is increased in accordance with this section or by an order of the Tribunal.
(6)A landlord shall not contravene or fail to comply with this section.
(emphasis added)
15. In NSW the rent payable by a tenant, under a tenancy agreement that is for a fixed-term, cannot be increased during the currency of that term unless the amount of the increase or the method that will be used to calculate the increase is stipulated and clearly set out in the agreement.
16. There are a number of cases referred to in Residential Tenancies Law and Practice: New South Wales 4th Edition (2008), The Federation Press, Sydney, by Allan Anforth and Peter Christensen, at pp 130-131, where the Courts have confirmed this interpretation of the NSW provision.
17. However in the ACT the Act is silent on this issue so one then has to look at the prescribed terms of the tenancy.
18. I agree with my learned colleague, in his decision of Parker v Woodham, that the issue of whether the rent can be increased in the fixed term is only a live issue for leases with fixed terms of more than one year. In the ACT most of the tenancies are for a period of 12 months which then, commonly, continue after this term as a periodic tenancy.
19. There are occasionally, however, leases that have fixed terms for longer than a year and it seems to me that this situation is actually provided for in schedule 1 of the Act, the standard residential tenancy terms, specifically clauses 34 and 35.
20. With the greatest respect to my colleague, I cannot agree with his interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Bill 1997 (ACT) explanatory memorandum, that the bill implements most of the recommendations of the Community Law Reform Committee of the ACT Report Number 8 (the Report). In his decision at [32] he quotes clause 274 of the report, but there is nothing further, either in the reading speech, the parliamentary debate or indeed the explanatory memorandum that supports the alleged intention of the legislature that a fixed term of longer than 12 months prevents the possibility of a rent increase.
21. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum, which deals with the current clauses 34 and 35 as 32 and 33 respectively, states:
Clause 32 [clause 34 in the current Act]
prohibits variation of the rent from period to period except as provided by this Tenancy Agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act.Clause 33 [clause 35 in the current Act]
implements Recommendation 60 – that the frequency of rent increases should be restricted to one increase per year whether the tenancy is fixed term or periodic.
22. When one reads clauses 265 to 274 of the Report together I do not believe that they support my learned colleague’s decision. I attach a copy of these clauses.
23. The Act provides that if a rent increase occurs, and the tenant is not satisfied with that, that in itself can terminate the tenancy. The tenant is therefore not necessarily penalised if they do not agree with the rent increase; they can simple leave and find more suitable or affordable accommodation elsewhere.
24. The inability to alter the rent part-way through a fixed-term cuts both ways. Many things could happen in the property market. For example, if a fixed term was for five years, a glut of rental properties on the market dictating that the rent should come down would mean that the tenant is paying too much. Conversely, a shortage of properties on the market driving rent prices up might mean the tenant is paying too little. I can see situations both ways where the tenant or indeed the landlords could be financially disadvantaged from this situation.
25. It seems to me that one needs to look very closely at clauses 34 and 35 of the schedule (as supported by the Explanatory memorandum above) and of the tenancy agreement that is applicable in this particular case. The agreement states:
34The amount of rent must not vary from period to period except as provided by this tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act.
35The rent may not be increased at intervals of less than 12 months from either the beginning of the tenancy agreement for the first increase, or after that, from the date of the last increase.
26. Clause 34 clearly indicates that the rent shall not vary except as provided by the agreement and the Act. As we know, the Act is silent so we go back to the tenancy agreement and the recommended scheduled items that are contained in this agreement and indeed in most agreements in the Territory.
27. Clause 35 is quite clear in dictating that the rent may not be increased at intervals of less than 12 months from either the beginning of the tenancy agreement for the first increase or after that from the date of the last increase.
28. As the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states, The frequency of the rent increases should be limited to one increase per year regardless of whether the tenancy is fixed term or periodic.
29. This clearly anticipates that after 12 months from the beginning of a tenancy agreement rent can be increased. So one could have a situation of a tenancy agreement for 12 months; the rent is then increased; the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy for another 12 months; the lessees are still there and a further increase is then made.
30. To my mind the clause clearly envisages a situation where 12 months into a tenancy agreement for a term longer than 12 months, (as we have in this case), the rent can be increased 12 months into the agreement. The key words here are ‘…the rent may not be increased at intervals of less than 12 months from either the beginning of the tenancy agreement for the first increase, or after that, from the date of the last increase’ (emphasis added). The words are quite clear as to rent being able to be increased after 12 months from the beginning of a tenancy agreement in the first instance regardless of how long this agreement is for.
31. Clause 35, to me, seems to indicate quite clearly and anticipates that not all tenancy agreements will be for 12 months. There will be tenancy agreements that might be for two, five, ten or more years. And the provision of a 12 months increase is built into that. The Act is silent. Our law is very different from the law of NSW and in this regard I applaud my colleagues’ comment to the effect that the matter needs consideration by the Legislature and/or by the Supreme Court.
32. Unfortunately I cannot share the same view that he has in relation to being able to bring our law into harmony with NSW. It would be great if there was sufficient provisions in our Act and/or in our itemised standard tenancy agreement whereby the NSW law could be followed quite clearly here but it seems to me that it cannot. Clause 35, in my view, indicates an intention to provide for a 12 month review of rent regardless of whether one is in a 12 month fixed term or a fixed term that is longer than 12 months.
33. I appreciate that this matter may require further clarification, and of course parties are entitled to appeal, in the first instance, to the appeal division of ACAT. Parties can also go straight from ACAT to the Supreme Court and bypass the ACAT appeal division. As my learned colleague indicates, this is a matter that can be clarified in the Supreme Court or indeed a matter that can be cleared up by the legislature and it is certainly something I will bring to the Attorney’s attention as something that he may wish to consider given the effect of this decision is to disagree with my learned colleague who made a decision, not even 12 months ago on the same point. I have already advised the Department of Justice and Community Safety of the issue and the need for legislative change to clear this up.
34. I have also spoken to the other two tribunal members who have dealt with this issue and there is not a single view. However that is the nature of tribunals and courts. It is something that I think needs to be sorted out but I cannot read the relevant law in any way other than what I have done above. I intend meeting with my three colleagues and issuing an agreed solution to this problem to ensure a consistent approach can be taken until the legislative or an appellate jurisdiction sorts out this issue. I have in mind an agreed form of words to be used whenever a fixed lease for a term longer than 12 months is executed.
35. In terms of the rent, the tenants have claimed 22 weeks at $50 per week, starting from 30 August 2007. It is not disputed that they have paid the increase. On my reckoning, however, the tenancy did not begin until 1 September 2007 and therefore the rent increase could not begin until 1 September 2008 so I allow the tenants two days, which is two sevenths of $50 a week which is $14.28 a week.
36. I come now to the issue of the posting clause.
37. Posting clauses are very common in the ACT as many landlords are posted overseas, working in such areas as DFAT and Defence, and indeed the same applies to many tenants and therefore it is logical that people who go off overseas in the service of their country should not be inconvenienced or hindered just because a tenancy has to come to an abrupt halt part way through its term.
38. This provision is made in the Act and indeed in the agreement. There is also a case on the issue: Hart & Freeburn v Norton [2000] ACTRTT 9. This was a case of a landlord who returned prematurely from an overseas posting and required possession of the family home from the tenants who were still in the fixed term of the lease. The tribunal member found as a fact that the parties has orally agreed to this contingency but had not recorded this term in the lease.
39. On balance the tribunal found the landlord would suffer greater hardship if possession of the premises was not granted and the tribunal ordered the landlord pay the tenants a nominal sum of $400 compensation for the disruption caused to the tenant as a consequence of the tribunal making the order of possession of the premises.
40. The difference of that case from this one is that the parties had agreed orally to the contingency but simply had not recorded it in the lease. In the current case the issue was that it was agreed by Mrs Bannan and the tenants that the fixed term would be for two years. The landlord initially indicated she would like 12 months however the tenants wanted greater certainty and wanted about three years. The parties settled on two years.
41. The landlord indicated she certainly intended for the fair clause for posted people to be activated if she returned and that it was simply an oversight that the box was not ticked. The tenants indicated that it was not discussed and the landlord did concede that there was not any discussion in relation to this posting clause.
42. Mrs Bannan asked the tribunal that it should be implied. I did note in the schedule that a number of boxes were not ticked and the tribunal specifically discussed item 13 and item 14. Item 13 being that the unit would be provided unfurnished. This box was not ticked either, however the unit was provided unfurnished at the time the tenants took occupancy and that was not in issue.
43. It really was an issue, however, as to postings and the landlord accepted two years as being a reasonable time, it seems because the posting was for two years with an option to renew the posting for a further year. Unfortunately she did not tick Item 14 box which would be: ‘A: The fair clause for posted people applies’. This item then refers to Clause 1 of the clauses to the agreement which lists how the tenancy agreement may be terminated if the lessor was posted to Canberra. Mrs Bannan certainly gave the tenants the required notice but, as she conceded, she did not tick this box.
44. Unfortunately for the landlord this situation is different from Hart & Freeburn v Norton where there was clear agreement, albeit oral, that this was intended to apply. On the evidence before me I could not find any clear agreement. The tenant was adamant there was no oral agreement and the landlord did not press the issue that there had been discussion in relation to what occurred if she came back earlier that two years. The two years was picked as a reasonable time for the posting as it was anticipated the posting would last two years and possibly longer.
45. On that basis the landlord cannot succeed in terminating the tenancy by relying on this clause and I so find.
46. However, that is not the end of the matter. There is, of course the issue of hardship.
Hardship
47. Hardship in relation to a tenant is defined in s 44 of the Act
Significant hardship
(1)On application by a tenant, the ACAT may terminate a fixed term agreement in accordance with this section if satisfied that—
(a) the tenant would suffer significant hardship were the agreement to continue; and
(b) the level of hardship is such that it is appropriate and just to terminate the agreement during its fixed term.
(2) If—
(a) the ACAT decides to terminate a residential tenancy agreement in accordance with this section; and
(b) the ACAT is satisfied that—
(i) the tenant would suffer significant hardship if the agreement were not terminated within 8 weeks after the making of the decision to terminate; and
(ii) that hardship would be greater than the hardship the lessor would suffer if the agreement were terminated within 8 weeks after that day;
the ACAT must—
(c) specify the day, less than 8 weeks after the making of the decision to terminate, when the termination is to happen; and
(d) give the lessor the notice of the proposed termination that is reasonable in the circumstances.
(3) If—
(a) the ACAT decides to terminate a residential tenancy agreement in accordance with this section; and
(b) the ACAT is not satisfied about the matters mentioned in subsection (2) (b);
the ACAT must—
(c) taking into consideration the need to comply with paragraph (d), specify the day, not less than 8 weeks after the making of the decision to terminate, when the termination is to happen; and
(d) give the lessor not less than 8 weeks notice of the proposed termination.
48. Hardship in terms of the lessor is described in s 50:
Significant hardship
(1)On application by a lessor, the ACAT may make a termination and possession order in relation to premises occupied under a fixed term agreement if satisfied that—
(a) the lessor would suffer significant hardship if the ACAT did not make the order; and
(b) that hardship would be greater than the hardship the tenant would suffer if the ACAT made the order.
(2) If—
(a) the ACAT decides to terminate a residential tenancy agreement in accordance with this section; and
(b) the ACAT is satisfied that—
(i) the lessor would suffer significant hardship if the agreement were not terminated within 8 weeks after the making of the decision to terminate; and
(ii) that hardship would be greater than the hardship the tenant would suffer if the agreement were terminated within 8 weeks after that day;
the ACAT must—
(c) specify the day, less than 8 weeks after the making of the decision to terminate, when the termination is to happen; and
(d) give the tenant the notice of the proposed termination that is reasonable in the circumstances.
(3) If—
(a) the ACAT decides to terminate a residential tenancy agreement in accordance with this section; and
(b) the ACAT is not satisfied about the matters mentioned in subsection (2) (b);
the ACAT must—
(c) taking into consideration the need to comply with paragraph (d), specify the day, not less than 8 weeks after the making of the decision to terminate, when the termination is to happen; and
(d) give the tenant no less than 8 weeks notice of the proposed termination.
49. One has to look then, at who would suffer the most in relation to hardship if the lease was terminated early. The terms in relation to hardship stand alone. The Act is clear that ACAT may terminate a fixed term agreement if sufficient hardship could be demonstrated by a landlord or a tenant were the agreement to continue and where the level of hardship is such that it is appropriate and just to terminate the agreement during its fixed term.
50. Mrs Bannan’s mother, Helena Myvalt, is a lady of approximately 80 years of age and of Czech origin. As mentioned above, she owns a third of the unit. She has some heart issues and high blood pressure and she has to see her GP and her cardiologist, both of whom live in Canberra, on a regular basis for these. She lived in the unit for some three to four years prior to leasing it to the current tenants. During this time her son from Batlow, who is now aged 55, would visit her frequently and spend about half of his time in Canberra. He can no longer do this.
51. Mrs Bannan stated her mother has suffered some stress by not being in the unit. While the Bannan’s were in Beijing the arrangement was that when the tenants moved in, Mrs Myvelt would live with her granddaughter in the Bannan family home in Fadden (the Fadden house). The granddaughter is studying at university and therefore did not join the rest of the family in Beijing. When the family returned to Canberra they moved back into the Fadden house, where they live with a son and daughter and there is only a spare room for Mrs Myvelt. It is not as good an arrangement as living in her own home. The furniture from the unit is also being stored at a cost of $529 every three months.
52. Currently Mrs Myvelt spends half her time down at Dalmeeny with another son, basically sharing her time between the two places. Whilst Dalmeeny is a very pleasant place, the Mrs Bannan’s mother does have to come up to Canberra for medical reasons from time to time. She has been receiving this treatment for about six years. Transport at Dalmeeny is not good.
53. Mr and Mrs May have lived in the Gordon area for a number of years. They have been in the unit since January 2007. Before that they were in another place in Gordon renting for four or five years and before that in another property in Gordon for two years.
54. They have looked at several other houses in the area when this matter first was brought to a head by the Bannan’s returning from Beijing. They thought other properties they could get at the same price were not nearly as good. They say they feel very safe in the complex. They do not want to move. They are great tenants; they have improved all the properties they have been in. Mr Saxon spoke on their behalf. It was conceded by the landlords that they were exemplary tenants.
55. Mr May is a self-employed mechanic who earns around $1000 per week. Mrs May is not in the workforce.
56. The unit has three bedrooms and the May’s live there by themselves but they have a son in Canberra who visits and a son in Queensland who comes down every four months for about two weeks. He has a wife and two children, a boy and a girl, aged 15 and six. The Mays also have a daughter and a son in Europe, both with two children but it was conceded that they would not be coming to visit before the first of September.
57. The key term is ‘significant hardship’ and there is two catergories (1) significant hardship which would mean giving the tenant eight weeks or more to get out or (2) significant hardship of a stronger variety which would mean giving the tenant less than eight weeks.
58. Significant is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as ‘important; of consequence’.
59. Were Mrs Myvalt’s medical condition such that there was evidence before the tribunal to indicate that she had to live in Canberra to obtain proper treatment then I may have felt there is significant hardship and if the medical evidence was severe enough, that the tenants may have had to leave within an eight week period rather than after it.
60. It does seem, however, that she has been commuting between Dalmeeny and Canberra staying there for a number of weeks and then coming back here for appointments and that whilst that arrangement is not ideal it does not appear to have had significantly adverse medical impact on her (apart from the obvious stress in not being back in her own home).
61. Were it to be so and were it to be proven so I might well have found significant hardship for the lessor more particularly the lessor’s mother who has a one third share in the unit and to whom that unit is home.
62. Dalmeeny is a pleasant place without a huge amount of transport and unfortunately does not have the same medical facilities. However it would seem that whilst Mrs Myvelt does have a room in her daughter’s Canberra home, and whilst that is not an ideal situation, it is not by any means a bad situation either. Many elderly parents live with sons and daughters. It may not be the most ideal thing but if they are giving loving care and attention it is a reasonable arrangement. It should also be noted that there is some inconvenience to the lessors brother from Batlow in the current situation.
63. Mr Saxon gave evidence that properties in the Lanyon valley are tight. Mr and Mrs May have an affinity with the area. When the tenancy was entered into the posting clause was not ticked and Mr and Mrs May had every reasonable expectation that they would be able to live in that premises for two years. Mrs Myvelt also had an expectation that she would be living in her daughter’s home, (albeit with less people in the house) and would not be back in the unit before September 2009 and also that her goods would be in storage until then.
64. To me it would be preferable if an arrangement could be made whereby Mr and Mrs May could vacate the unit before that date and I would certainly encourage them to look for suitable properties and do so as I think that is in everyone’s interest. Mr and Mrs May gave evidence that this was also a bit of a drain and strain on them and that they felt that they would like to vacate the unit as soon as they could find something reasonable and were happy to vacate the unit prior to 1 September providing of course they did not have to pay two rents. Mrs Bannan made it clear that she did not expect the Mays to pay any rent the moment they left the property.
65. On that basis I encouraged the parties to go away and sort something out. As they had not sorted something out by 26 February 2009 then I intend making the following order in relation to this. For reasons given above I do not regard the hardship suffered by Mrs Bannan and her mother, Mrs Myvelt, as being of such significance to justify a termination on hardship grounds of the two year lease. There is only six months left to run on the lease and the anticipation of all parties at the time the lease was signed was that it would run its full term.
66. The arrangements made for Mrs Bannan’s mother, Mrs Myvelt, are reasonable and there do not seem to be any great pressing need for her to move back into the unit as a matter of urgency.
67. Accordingly I find that the clause was not ticked. It was not anticipated that the Bannan’s would be back within the two year period. It is unfortunate for them that Mrs Bannan did not tick the clause otherwise this would be terribly simple but she did not and the Mays have a reasonable expectation of staying out the two years.
68. I order the following:
(a) I direct that the Mays have to vacate the unit on or before 1 September 2009 and I direct the tenancy terminate on that day
(b) I further direct that a final inspection be done at a reasonable time before that date to enable the Mays to receive any bond monies due to them prior to, or on, the first of September.
(c) I order that if the Mays can leave the property prior to 1 September they are to advise the lessor as soon as they find another place to live and vacate the premises within 14 days of giving such notice to ensure all the necessary arrangements can be made as to final inspections, cessation of rent payment and return of bond monies.
(d) Regarding the increase in rent I also find that the increase is allowable for the reasons listed above and the increase to $340 per week is to apply from 1 September 2008 and I direct the amount of $14.28 is to be refunded to the tenant.
B. Stefaniak
5 March 2009
0