Winter v Delacy (Residential Tenancies)

The dispute in this case, Winter v Delacy, arose in the context of a residential tenancy agreement. The applicants, tenants, sought compensation from the respondent, the lessor, for various breaches of the tenancy agreement. The case was heard in the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. The applicants argued that the respondent failed to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, leading to multiple issues that disrupted their quiet enjoyment of the premises. They also claimed that the notice to vacate did not constitute a valid termination of the tenancy agreement, and that the respondent remained in breach of the agreement at the time the notice was issued.

The tribunal was tasked with determining several legal issues, including whether the respondent breached the tenancy agreement by failing to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, whether the repairs were urgent, and whether the applicants were entitled to compensation for the loss of quiet enjoyment. Additionally, the tribunal needed to decide if the notice to vacate was a valid termination of the tenancy agreement and if the respondent remained in breach when the notice was issued. Finally, the tribunal had to consider the applicants' claim for costs of preparation for the hearing.

The tribunal found that the respondent breached the tenancy agreement by failing to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, particularly regarding urgent repairs. The tribunal also found that the applicants lost quiet enjoyment of the premises due to the respondent's failure to address the issues promptly. While the notice to vacate was not a valid termination, the tribunal ruled that the applicants were entitled to compensation for the breaches. The tribunal awarded the applicants compensation for the loss of use of the range hood, for the second water leak, and for interference with their peace, comfort, and privacy. The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay the applicants' costs of preparation for the hearing.

The tribunal ordered that the bond held by ACT Rental Bonds on behalf of the Territory be released to the applicants. The respondent was directed to pay the applicants $3,882 within 28 days, which included compensation for the loss of use of the range hood, for the second water leak, and for interference with the applicants' peace, comfort, and privacy. The tribunal also ruled that the respondent's notice to vacate did not constitute a valid termination of the tenancy agreement and that the respondent remained in breach at the time the notice was issued.