Rudig v Varsity Towers Holdings Pty Ltd
[2021] QCAT 257
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Rudig v Varsity Towers Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] QCAT 257
PARTIES:
CALLUM RUDIG
(applicant)
v
VARSITY TOWERS HOLDINGS PTY LTD
(respondents)
APPLICATION NO/S:
MCDT 822-21
MATTER TYPE:
Residential tenancy matters
DELIVERED ON:
27 July 2021
HEARING DATE:
8 July 2021
HEARD AT:
Southport
DECISION OF:
Adjudicator Lember
ORDERS:
The accommodation arrangement between the parties is a residential tenancy agreement within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) and to which the Act applies.
CATCHWORDS:
LANDLORD AND TENANT – RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION – OTHER MATTERS – whether student accommodation is rooming accommodation or residential tenancy – whether accommodation is self-contained
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 11, Schedule 3
Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 12, s 12(4), s 15, s 16, s 18, s 418APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Self-represented
Respondent:
Self-represented
REASONS FOR DECISION
The nature of the claim
The applicant lives in a one-bedroom studio (studio) in off-campus student accommodation managed by the respondent.
The terms of his occupation of the studio are set out in a Rooming Accommodation Agreement in Form R18 dated 30 April 2021.
The applicant submits that the nature of his agreement with the respondent is a residential tenancy rather than rooming accommodation and seeks an order of the tribunal declaring that to be the case.
Section 11 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”) gives the Tribunal jurisdiction over minor civil disputes.
Schedule 3 of the Act includes a “tenancy matter” as a minor civil dispute, a tenancy matter being defined in Schedule 3 as a matter under which a person may apply under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (“RTRAA”), to the tribunal for a decision regarding a residential tenancy.
On 11 June 2021 the applicant filed an urgent application under section 418 of the RTRAA seeking a declaration that his arrangement with the respondent is pursuant to a residential tenancy agreement.
The nature of the accommodation
The applicant says he occupies a fully self-contained studio unit[1], with its own kitchen and bathroom.
[1]The respondent objected to the use of the word “unit” and referred to it as a “room” in the hearing.
There are no oven facilities in the studio, nor is there a common area kitchen in the complex, so the only cooking that the applicant can do is by using the hot-plates or the microwave in the studio.
Although the bathroom in the studio is described as a “bathroom/laundry” on the respondent’s website, the bathroom does not appear to include laundry facilities such as a washing machine or a clothes dryer, other than a “clothes airer”. The same website describes the one-bedroom studios and apartments as “fully self-contained”.
The respondent says:
(a)The accommodation is student accommodation that is located nearby to a private university and is promoted as “off campus student accommodation” by the university;
(b)The typical age of occupants is 18 to 22 years;
(c)The typical duration of a stay is fifteen weeks (but up to a year, or three semesters if students renew);
(d)The Council approval for the accommodation is short-stay student accommodation;
(e)Occupants of the complex enjoyed the shared use of a common room, laundry, games room and bar area; and
(f)The complex features studio, one, two and three-bedroom accommodation. In the two and three-bedroom accommodation, residents share living areas and kitchens, and sometimes bathrooms. Each occupant of a two or three-bedroom accommodation enters into a separate rooming accommodation agreement with the respondent for their respective room. This is to enable room occupants to pay for their rooms directly and saves them from being co-tenants and financially responsible for the other occupants of their accommodation.
Each arrangement between the respondent and its occupants would need to be determined on its own merits. However, it seems from a review of the layout of the studio and one-bedroom accommodation that the considerations for each would be, if not the same, then substantially similar. The respondent urges the tribunal to consider in those circumstances the precedent it may set in terms of creating management difficulties for the respondent if their various arrangements needed to be documented and governed under two different regimes. Although I appreciate the concern of the respondent, this argument isn’t persuasive or, with respect, relevant to my determination.
What does the RTRAA say?
Section 418 of the RTRAA permits a person to apply to the tribunal for an order, and empowers the tribunal to make an order, declaring that an agreement is, or is not:
(a)a residential tenancy agreement to which the RTRAA applies; or
(b)a rooming accommodation agreement to which the RTRAA applies.
“Residential Tenancy Agreement” is defined in section 12 of the RTRAA as an agreement under which a person gives to someone else a right to occupy residential premises as a residence[2], whether or not the right is a right of exclusive occupation[3].
[2]Section 12(1) of the RTRAA.
[3]Section 12(2) of the RTRAA.
Section 12(4) provides that an agreement is not a residential tenancy agreement if it is a “rooming accommodation agreement”.
Under section 16, a “rooming accommodation agreement” is one under which a provider provides rooming accommodation to a resident in rental premises.
Under section 15, “rooming accommodation” is accommodation occupied or available for occupation by residents, in return for the payment of rent, if each of the residents (my emphasis added):
(a)has a right to occupy one or more rooms; and
(b)does not have a right to occupy the whole of the premises in which the rooms are situated; and
(c)does not occupy a self-contained unit; and
(d)shares other rooms, or facilities outside of the resident’s room, with one or more of the other residents.
The requirements under section 15 are cumulative in that, each has to be met for the arrangement to be deemed rooming accommodation. In other words, the grant to one person of the exclusive right to occupy a fully self-contained unit will not qualify as rooming accommodation, even if the other conditions in section 15 are met.
Section 18 of the RTRAA permits the parties to deem their rooming arrangement to be a residential tenancy, but neither party suggested that has happened in this case.
The applicant relies upon the requirement that rooming accommodation must not be a “self-contained unit” in submitting that his agreement does not meet the definition of rooming accommodation under section 15.
The RTRAA does not define what is meant by “self-contained unit”.
According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, “self-contained” means “containing or having everything that is needed within itself”. The Collins Dictionary provides that “self-contained accommodation such as a flat has all its own facilities, so that a person living there does not have to share rooms such as a kitchen or bathroom with other people”.
On the evidence before me, the studio occupied by the applicant is self-contained:
(a)Floor plans on the respondent’s website indicate that it is self-contained;
(b)The respondent advertises the studio as self-contained and made no submissions to the contrary;
(c)The applicant is the sole occupant of the studio and does not share the studio with any other person; and
(d)Common areas and facilities in the building are available to the applicant but are not necessary for him to sustain himself.
This finding precludes the arrangement from falling within the definition of “rooming accommodation” under section 15 of the RTRAA and, accordingly, it is a residential tenancy agreement. I therefore declare it to be such under section 418 of the RTRAA.
0
0
0