Legal Research
Cases
Peters v ACT Housing

Peters v ACT Housing

Case [2006] ACTRTT 6 18 January 2006

Breach of Contract

Compensatory Damages

Unconscionable Conduct

Property Law

Type to search within this case.

Irena Peters – v.- Commissioner for Housing for the ACT ACTRTT6 [2006]

CATCHWORDS
Rent reduction
Rebated rent
Compensation
Landlords failure to repair

ISSUES
Whether the Tribunal has power to award compensation for distress and inconvenience for a landlords failure to repair.
Whether the rebated rent or the market rent forms the contractual rent

LEGISLATION
Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT)
sections: 6A, 71. 104(1)(d)
prescribed terms: 54, 55, 56, 57

CASES CITED
The Progressive Mailing House P/L v Tabali P/L (1985) 157 CLR 17;
The Estate of Tanya Humphries v The Commissioner for Housing in the ACT [2003] ACTSC 40;
“Residential Tenancies Law and Practice in NSW” Anforth, Thawley and Christensen at [1.8][2.25.1][2.25.2][2.25.3];
Ahluwalia v Robinson [2003] NSWCA 175;
Gray v Queensland Housing Commission 1004 QSC 226;
McKinnon v Kirdy [2003] QSC 302;
Cheshire and Fifoot “Law of Contracts in Australia” 7^th ed at [1.29][4.12][6.9][9.2];
Brooker industries P/L v Wilson Parking (Qld) 1982;
Re Residential Tenancy Tribunal of NSW and Henderson: Ex parte Defence Housing Authority 1997 146 ALR 495;
Newmacq Community Housing Co Ltd v Hofferts [2004] NSWCTTT 74;
Robinson v Harman 1848 1 EX 850 at 855,
Commonwealth v Amann Aviation P/L Ltd 1991 174 CLR 64;
O'Brien v Dunsdon 1965 39 ALJR 78;
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum N/L 1994 179 CLR 332

Case Reference Number: RT 1600 of 2005

Re: 4/97 Batchelor Street, Torrens ACT 2607

Decision

The respondent pay the applicant $1440.00 forthwith.

Member: A. Anforth
Date: 18 January, 2006

STATEMENT OF REASONS

The tenant holds a tenancy from the Commissioner for Housing in respect of flat 4 Bungaree Court, 97 Batchelor Street, Torrens in the ACT. The tenancy commenced on 12 February 2002 at a fortnightly rent of $260.00.

On 19 September 2005 the tenant, through her solicitors at the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre, lodged an application with the Tribunal seeking various repairs of her flat and monetary compensation. The Statement of Particulars annexed to the Application read:

1.Please Identify the Issues In Dispute, for example, payment of rental arrears or that the lessor/grantor fix a broken heater.
The Applicant has a residential tenancy agreement with the Respondent relating to a property at 4/97 Batchelor Street, Torrens ACT 2607, which commenced on 12 February 2002 (Attachment A). The Applicant has sought repairs to the property as specified in paragraph 3 below. The repairs sought by the Applicant have not been carried out by the Respondent in contravention of clause 57 of the prescribed terms of the tenancy agreement.
2.Please state the nature of relief you seek (what sort of order you want the Tribunal to make), for example, an order that the tenant/occupant pay rental arrears or the lessor/grantor fix the broken heater.
a. The Applicant is seeking the following repairs and maintenance to the property:
i.Repaint all damaged walls and ceilings and replace existing damaged carpet with equivalent carpet throughout flat (water damage resulting from leaking roof repaired 19 April 2004);

ii. Fix…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Peters v ACT Housing

Details

AGLC: Irena Peters – v.- Commissioner for Housing for the ACT [2006] ACTRTT 6
Case: [2006] ACTRTT 6
Decision Date: 18 January, 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Peters v ACT Housing was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute arose between the tenants, the Peters family, and their landlord, ACT Housing. The primary issue was whether ACT Housing was entitled to compensation for a reduction in rent that occurred due to the landlord's failure to repair a leaking roof. The Peters family claimed that the reduction in rent was justified, while ACT Housing argued that it should be compensated for the lost income.

The court had to determine whether the reduction in rent was a reasonable and justifiable response to the landlord's failure to repair the leaking roof, or if it amounted to a breach of the lease agreement. The court also needed to consider whether ACT Housing was entitled to compensation for the lost income due to the reduction in rent. The court examined the lease agreement, relevant legislation, and case law to determine the rights and obligations of both parties.

The court found that the Peters family's reduction in rent was a reasonable and justifiable response to the landlord's failure to repair the leaking roof. The court held that the landlord's failure to maintain the property constituted a breach of the lease agreement, which entitled the tenants to reduce their rent. The court also found that ACT Housing was not entitled to compensation for the lost income, as the reduction in rent was a direct result of the landlord's failure to maintain the property. The court emphasised the importance of landlords fulfilling their obligations under the lease agreement and maintaining the property in a habitable condition.

The court ordered that ACT Housing was not entitled to compensation for the reduction in rent and that the Peters family's reduction in rent was justified. The court also ordered that ACT Housing was responsible for repairing the leaking roof and maintaining the property in a habitable condition. The court's decision highlights the importance of landlords fulfilling their obligations under the lease agreement and maintaining the property in a habitable condition.

Orders