ZYWCZAK & JAMES (Residential Tenancies) - [2012] ACAT 45

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ZYWCZAK & JAMES (Residential Tenancies) [2012] ACAT 45

RT 12/525
Catchwords: RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – termination and possession order – counterclaim – arrears of rent – agreement to maintain garden – agreement to keep accounts
List of legislation: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, s 7
Residential Tenancies Act 1997, ss 49 and 121

List of Texts/Papers: Explanatory Memorandum to the Residential Tenancies Bill 1997
Community Law Reform Committee of the Australian Capital Territory, Private Residential Tenancy Law (1994)

Tribunal: Ms Mary-Therese Daniel, Member

Date of Orders: 18 June 2012
Date of Reasons for Decision: 3 July 2012

ACT CIVIL &  )
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL          )
RT 12/525
TERMINATION AND POSSESSION ORDER
Between:Irena Zywczak {Applicant/Lessor}
And:         Kerry James {Respondent/Tenant}
Re:PREMISES AT (address removed)

TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, 18 June 2012, the ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal found that the Tenancy Agreement has been breached, and made the following ORDERS:

That the Residential Tenancies Agreement is terminated and possession of the premises is to be given to the lessor at 5:30pm on Monday the 18^th day of June, 2012.
That the said tenant and any other person claiming right of possession through the tenant’s tenancy is to vacate the premises in accordance with this Order.
That if the tenant fails to vacate the premises in accordance with Order 1 & 2 above, the lessor may apply to the Registry of the ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal for a Warrant for Eviction.
That this order is suspended for a period of 21 days.
That the tenant shall pay the lessor rental arrears in the sum of $900.00 forthwith.
That the tenant shall pay the lessor an occupancy fee at the rate of $25.71 per day from the 19^th day of June, 2012, until the date that possession is given.

Signed ……Ms Mary-Therese Daniel

Member

ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 18 June 2012 I heard an application by the lessor (Mrs Zywczak) for a termination and possession order for arrears of rent in the sum of $900 in relation to the respondent’s (Mr James) tenancy, and the respondent’s counter-claim for $990.
At the conclusion of the matter I dismissed the counter-claim entirely, and found that arrears of rent in the sum of $900 were payable. I then declined to make a conditional termination and possession order under section 49(4) of the RT Act, which course had been urged by the respondent, and instead made an unconditional termination and possession order as sought by the applicant.
At the conclusion of the hearing the respondent’s representative requested that I provide written reasons for the decision, including reasons for refusing to grant the respondent an adjournment. My reasons follow.

Facts

The facts in this matter were largely undisputed. The tenant Mr James signed a residential tenancies agreement with the lessor, Mrs Zywczak, for a fixed term of 12 months commencing 15 December 2005. The rent payable under that agreement was $180 per week, payable fortnightly two weeks in advance.
It was common ground at the hearing that in addition to the written tenancy agreement, the tenant and lessor agreed that there would be no increase in rent during the tenancy in consideration for the tenant maintaining the garden. The lessor being an elderly lady (now 89 years of age) living alone and the tenant being an able-bodied and younger man (now aged 49) it is understandable that such an arrangement may have been reached. There was no evidence before me that this ‘gardening arrangement’ was reduced to writing or endorsed by the Tribunal as an additional term in the agreement. I make no comment on the arrangement, other than to note that it was an important background fact to the tenancy, the existence of which was agreed by both parties.
When the fixed term expired the tenancy became a periodic tenancy.
Towards the end of 2011, the tenant became unemployed. At this time, the rent was being paid weekly, and a number of weekly rent payments were entirely missed. In December 2011, the rental bond was obtained by the tenant from the Office of Rental Bonds (the circumstances giving rise to this action were contentious) and applied towards outstanding rent.
The relationship between the parties deteriorated, and in early 2012 proceedings were instituted in the ACAT in relation to the tenancy. The details of those proceedings are of no relevance to this matter, other than to note that as a consequence of orders issued in those proceedings and a subsequent (successful) appeal, the tenant missed further rent payments in 2012, which were not completely caught up by the time of the hearing before me.
On 19 April 2012 a Notice to Remedy in relation to outstanding rent was served upon the tenant. That Notice was not complied with, and on 27 April 2012, a Termination Notice was served upon the tenant requiring that the premises be vacated by 11 May 2012. The Termination Notice was not complied with, and on 16 May 2012 the lessor instituted these proceedings seeking an unconditional termination and possession order under section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RT Act).

These proceedings

The lessors’ application for an unconditional termination and possession order and a Notice listing the matter for hearing on 18 June 2012, was sent to the tenant by pre-paid post on 25 May 2012.
On 4 June 2012, the respondent tenant, through his advocate Mr Emerson-Elliot of the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre, filed a response and counter-claim, claiming a set-off in relation to the arrears in the sum of $1225. The response sought orders that the application for a termination and possession order be dismissed, and the lessor ordered to pay to the tenant a specified sum.

The first request for an adjournment

The matter first came before me on 13 June 2012, Mr Emerson-Elliot having requested that the proposed hearing date be adjourned and directions made for the filing of evidence. The proposed adjournment was vigorously opposed by the lessor’s solicitor, Mr Moffat.
Mr Emerson-Elliot submitted that the matter should be adjourned for two reasons. First, it was submitted that the lessor had separately given notice that the rent was to be increased, and that the tenant’s objection to that proposed increase was yet to be heard and determined by the Tribunal. Mr Emerson-Elliot submitted that any Tribunal hearing the application for a termination and possession order in relation to the tenancy would need to know the outcome of the proposed rental increase, before being able to determine whether the tenant was ‘reasonably likely’ to be able to meet any future rent payments, as required by paragraph 49(3)(a) of the RT Act.
I did not accept this argument, as I indicated to Mr Emerson-Elliot at the time, because in circumstances where a proposed rental increase is not certain, I was of the view that the Tribunal should determine the application for a termination and possession order by reference to the current – lower – rent. This approach could only operate in the favour of the tenant, and was not opposed by Mr Moffat.
Secondly, Mr Emerson-Elliot submitted that the tenant would need time to attend Care Inc. (a financial counselling service) and with their expert assistance prepare a budget which would be highly persuasive evidence for the Tribunal in determining, if there were found to be rental arrears, whether to exercise the discretion to make a conditional rather than unconditional, termination and possession order. In this context, Mr Emerson-Elliot submitted that the RT Act is protective legislation, in the sense that it is designed to protect tenants, and that the practice of the Tribunal in listing section 49 termination and possession order applications to be heard in 2-3 weeks from filing of the application conflicted with that protective intention.
There are a number of levels on which I was not persuaded by this submission. First, in relation to the need for the tenant to attend upon Care Inc. and prepare a budget with the assistance of a financial counsellor, who might give evidence in the proceedings, I noted the important service Care Inc. provides in helping persons from all walks of life who may find themselves in financial difficulty. However, it must be recognised that the opinion of a financial counsellor from Care Inc. is in no way binding upon the Tribunal. It is also no substitute for the evidence of the tenant as to their own personal situation. The view of a financial counsellor, unless properly qualified as expert evidence, is little more than another person’s opinion, based on hearsay, and is given weight accordingly. It is always preferable to hear evidence from the tenant themselves as to their financial situation, their income and financial obligations. I was not prepared to adopt a blanket approach that the evidence of a financial counsellor was so necessary for the resolution of a rental arrears case that the hearing of a section 49 application should await the preparation of a budget from Care Inc.
Secondly, I did not consider that the listing of the matter for hearing within three weeks of service of the application was contrary to the intended operation of the legislation. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Residential Tenancies Bill 1997 clearly states:
“The Bill seeks to balance the interests of parties to a residential tenancy agreement and to provide a framework for residential tenancy agreements...” and later “Eviction proceedings are clarified, recognising the interests of both landlords and tenants, ...”
The clear purpose of the RT Act is to balance the rights of the parties to the tenancy agreement, and to ensure that disputes in relation to a residential tenancy agreement are determined by the Tribunal as quickly, expeditiously and efficiently as is consistent with the requirements of procedural fairness. This mandate applied to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal originally established under Part VII of the RT Act by virtue of (then) section 121 which provided:

Informality of procedures
121. (1) In the performance of a function, the Tribunal shall have regard to the
                  rules of natural justice.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), the Tribunal—
(a)       shall proceed with as little formality and technicality and
                   with as much expedition as the requirements of this or any
                  other Act and a proper consideration of the matter permit;
                  and
        (b)       is not bound by rules of evidence but may inform itself of any
                  matter in any manner that it considers appropriate.

The same principles now apply to the Tribunal when exercising power in relation to a matter under the RT Act, by virtue of s.7 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACAT Act):
7Principles applying to Act
In exercising its functions under this Act, the tribunal must—
(a)ensure the procedures of the tribunal are as simple, quick, inexpensive and informal as is consistent with achieving justice; and
(b)observe natural justice and procedural fairness.
In the current case, the application was filed on 16 May 2012, notified to the tenant by mail on 25 May 2012, and listed for hearing some three weeks later on 18 June 2012. Three weeks is the later-end of the time-frame for ‘fast track’ residential tenancy matters. Given the need to balance the rights of the tenant with the interests of the lessor the allocation of rental arrears matters to the ‘fast track’ is entirely consistent with the intended operation of the RT and ACAT Acts.
Accordingly, I indicated to the parties that I intended to commence the hearing on 18 June 2012, and should it become necessary in the interests of justice that the matter be adjourned part-heard, an application for such an adjournment would be considered at the appropriate time.

The hearing

When the hearing proper commenced on 18 June 2012 the parties’ representatives provided a number of agreed facts. I have noted above that it was agreed that certain gardening tasks would be undertaken in lieu of rental increases. It was also agreed that taking into account $55 loaned by Mr James to Mrs Zywczak for the church collection, and one week’s rent waived in compensation for accounting work done by Mr James for Mrs Zywczak in November 2009, the rental arrears as at 18 June 2012 were $900.
The remaining elements of the counter-claim, which were not admitted, were as follows:
·$230 for a plumbing bill paid in January 2007 by Mr James;
·$180 being one weeks rent agreed to be waived for accountancy work done by Mr James in May 2010;
·$180 being one weeks rent agreed to be waived for accountancy work done by Mr James in November 2011; and
·$400 being the value of miscellaneous tasks undertaken by Mr James for Ms Zywczak at her request in November 2011.
Both Mr James and Mrs Zywczak gave evidence and relied upon their written statements which had been filed prior to the hearing. Both impressed as attempting to provide an accurate recollection of events although Mrs Zywczak’s recollection of recent events was minimal, and she conceded this in her evidence.
Evidence was also given by Mr David Ahrens, a friend of Mrs Zywczak who was appointed as her Attorney for property matters, personal care matters and health care matters under an enduring power of attorney dated 23 June 2010. Evidence in support of Mr James was also given by Ms Julie Evans, a Program Manager with Supportive Tenancy Service. Neither of these two witnesses had provided written statements prior to the hearing.

The second request for an adjournment

At the conclusion of Mr Ahrens’s evidence, Mr Emerson-Elliot sought an adjournment of the hearing so that he could call evidence from a neighbour of Mr James. It was submitted that the neighbour, who was currently overseas, would be able to give evidence that she had seen Mr James undertaking certain tasks around the house. Mr Emerson Elliot submitted that this evidence was now required to meet the ‘fresh’ evidence of Mr Ahrens, who had attested that in his view the work had not been done.
I declined the request for an adjournment for two reasons. First, because it had at all times been clear that the lessor denied that the work referred to in the counterclaim had been done – there was nothing ‘new’ raised by Mr Ahrens’s evidence in that respect. Secondly, I had by that time (having heard the evidence of Mr James and Mrs Zywczak) formed the view that even if some or all of the ‘miscellaneous tasks’ referred to in the counter claim had been performed, there was no basis for Mrs Zywczak to be required to pay Mr James for undertaking those tasks.
I turn then to my findings in relation to the facts and application of the relevant law.

Findings in relation to rental arrears

It was not disputed that, subject to the counter-claim being made out, rental arrears as at 18 June 2012 amounted to $900.

Findings in relation to counter claim
The plumbing bill

In relation to the plumbing bill, the evidence of both parties was largely in accord. A pipe near the tenant’s residence was blocked, a plumber was called and the ‘snake’ or ‘eel’ ultimately put down to clear it. At the time, Mrs Zywczak asked Mr James to pay the plumbing bill because, she said, the blockage was caused by a sanitary napkin being flushed down the toilet, presumably from one of Mr James’ relatives. Mr James did not contest this assertion at the time but paid the account. Mrs Zywczak gave evidence that she was told by the plumber at the time that the cause of the blockage was a sanitary napkin, and this was why she asked Mr James to pay the bill. She had no recollection of subsequent attendances by the plumber.
Mr James gave evidence that his recollection of his conversation with the plumber at the time was that the blockage was caused by tree roots. He considers that that explanation has now been proven to be correct, because it has been necessary subsequently for the plumber to attend and clear the pipe in the same manner, the bill for such attendance being met by Mrs Zywczak.
There was no evidence before me from the plumber who attended the premises in January 2007, as to why the pipe had been blocked. In relation to this matter, I am not comfortably satisfied that the blockage was caused solely by tree roots, although hindsight might suggest this as a reasonable explanation for at least part of the problem. It seems just as likely that the blockage was caused by a sanitary napkin catching on tree roots, which did not themselves constitute a blockage of the pipe. The second explanation is more consistent with the behaviour of the parties at the time. Consequently, I am not satisfied that this aspect of the counter-claim is made out on the balance of probabilities.

Financial work in May 2010 and November 2011

In relation to the claims in relation to accounting or book-keeping work in May 2010 and November 2011, Mr James gave evidence that he had on three occasions undertaken book-keeping and management tasks for Mrs Zywczak, being November 2009, May 2010 and November 2011. He said that on each occasion, it was agreed that he would not need to pay that week’s rent, in recognition of that work. Mrs Zywczak gave evidence that she made such an agreement only in November 2009.
In evidence before me as Exhibit A-2 was a summary of rent payments from 2 January 2010 to date. This document had been prepared by Mr Ahrens on the basis of Mrs Zywczak’s bank statements for that time period, which were also in evidence as Exhibit A-3.
An examination of Exhibits A-2 and A-3 indicate that all rent payments for May 2010 and following weeks were made. This is inconsistent with the existence of an agreement for waiver of one week’s rent being reached at that time. It is consistent with Mrs Zywczak’s evidence that there was no such agreement or work done. I am not consequently satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr James undertook any accounting or financial work at the request of Mrs Zywczak in May 2010.
In relation to financial work undertaken in November 2011, given the existence of the power of attorney in relation to financial matters, which Mr James gave evidence that he was aware of, it is difficult to conceive of what accounting services Mr James could have undertaken. Further, given Mr James’ evidence that at this time Mrs Zywczak’s attitude towards him changed and became ‘suspicious, antagonistic and adversarial’, it seems highly unlikely Mrs Zywczak would at that time have entrusted Mr James with anything to do with her financial affairs. Both Mr James and Mr Ahrens gave evidence that the question of rent being waived in exchange for accounting services was not addressed at a meeting between the parties, attended by Mr Ahrens, in December 2011. As the purpose of that meeting was to discuss the outstanding rent, this omission is significant. Mr James’ evidence in relation to this aspect of the counter-claim was not persuasive. Taking all of this evidence into account, I am not satisfied to the required level that this work was done.

The miscellaneous tasks

Finally, an amount of $400 was claimed as recompense for various tasks done by Mr James at Mrs Zywczak’s request. The basis on which the amount of $400 was calculated was not clear. These tasks included matters such as assisting Mrs Zywczak with her washing machine when it would not drain, repairing garden gates, replacing worn garden hoses, cleaning guttering, vacuuming the house, etc.
Although Mr James’ written statement indicated that these tasks were undertaken at Mrs Zywczak’s request with the agreement that appropriate deductions from the rent were to be made, this was not his sworn evidence. For example, in relation to the washing machine, Mr James said that there was no discussion, prior to him providing assistance, that there would be a deduction from his rent. Indeed, Mr James conceded generally that prior to undertaking these tasks he did not have any discussion with Mrs Zywczak about payment or recompense.

Evidence was given by Mr Ahrens to the effect that he did not consider that some of these specified tasks had been undertaken; although his evidence must be limited by the fact that he was not present on the property at all times.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, particularly given the existence of the ‘gardening arrangement’, the gardening-type tasks were probably undertaken. However, in relation to the gardening-type tasks there was no evidence that the performance of these duties was contemplated by the parties to be outside the scope of the ‘gardening arrangement’. There was no evidence that these tasks involved the making of a separate agreement or reasonable expectation of recompense – indeed Mr James’ evidence was to the contrary. As such, there seems no basis either in contract or in restitution for Mr James to now claim recompense for his performance of the gardening-type activities.
In relation to the other miscellaneous tasks, living in close proximity as the two parties were, and given their respective ages and circumstances, it would have been natural for Mrs Zywczak to request assistance from Mr James from time to time with matters such as a flooded washing machine or garage door that needed lubricating. It is likely that Mr James did provide occasional assistance, however I am satisfied that he did so with no expectation of financial reward, but rather because it was the appropriate and neighbourly thing to do. Mr James’ evidence was clear that he did not undertake these tasks after discussion of reimbursement. That being the case, I was not satisfied that Mrs Zywczak is now legally liable, either in contract or in accordance with principles of restitution, to reimburse Mr James in relation to those acts of kindness. Any reasonable person in the same circumstances would have undertaken these tasks for an elderly neighbour with no expectation of reward.
In conclusion, I was not satisfied that any aspect of the counter-claim was made out in this case, and no set-off against the arrears could be made.

Decision under s.49 of the RTT Act

Section 49 of the RT Act provides a process whereby a tenancy agreement may be terminated, either conditionally or unconditionally, where it is demonstrated that the tenancy agreement has been breached by the non-payment of rent:
49Failure to pay rent
(1) On application by a lessor, the ACAT may make a termination and possession
order if—
(a)    the tenant has failed to pay rent that has become payable under the
residential tenancy agreement; and
(b)     the lessor has served a termination notice on the tenant on the basis of the
failure to pay rent; and
(c)the tenant has not vacated the premises in accordance with the notice.
(2) If a lessor has made an application under subsection (1), the ACAT may refuse to
make a termination and possession order if—
(a)    the tenant has paid any rent that has become payable and is, in the ACAT’s
opinion, reasonably likely to pay future rent as it becomes payable; and
(b)the ACAT considers it just and appropriate to do so.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if—
(a)the tenant is, in the ACAT’s opinion, reasonably likely to pay the rent that
has become payable as well as pay future rent as it becomes payable; and
(b)     the tenant agrees to pay the rent that has become payable, and undertakes
to pay future rent as it becomes payable, as required by the ACAT.
(4) Instead of making a termination and possession order under subsection (1), the ACAT may order (conditional termination and possession order) that if the tenant fails to pay the rent that has become payable, or future rent as it becomes payable, as required by the ACAT—
(a)the tenancy terminates at a stated hour on the day after the day when any
rent becomes payable and is not paid; and
(c)    the lessor becomes entitled to possession of the premises and all rent
payable is payable immediately.
(5) If—
(a)the ACAT makes an order under subsection (1); and
(b)the ACAT is satisfied that—
(i)were the order not suspended for a specified period of no more than 3
weeks the tenant would suffer significant hardship; and
(ii)that hardship would be greater than the hardship that would be
suffered by the lessor if the order were suspended for the specified
period;
the ACAT may suspend the operation of the termination and possession order for a specified period of no more than 3 weeks.
Mr Moffat on behalf of the lessor sought that the Tribunal make an order under subsection 49(1), terminating the tenancy. While the precondition for exercise of power under section 49(1) was clearly made out, it was first necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case to exercise discretion under the remaining subsections of section 49.
Subsection 49(2) was not applicable in the current case, as the arrears were still outstanding.
Mr Emerson-Elliot on behalf of the tenant submitted that the Tribunal should exercise its discretion under subsection 49(4).
In relation to his ability to repay the arrears, Mr James had given evidence that he would in a matter of months be eligible for a loan of $500 from centrelink, and that he hoped he could borrow about $400 from a friend. In relation to his capacity to meet rent payments as and when they fell due, Mr James gave evidence that he was good with managing financially, and that he had been to see Care Inc and they had prepared a budget in May 2012 with which he was able to comply. The existence of this budget was surprising, given the basis on which Mr Emerson-Elliot had requested an adjournment on 13 June 2012. Mr Emerson-Elliot however explained that he had not intentionally misled the Tribunal in his application for an adjournment, as he did not actually know that the tenant had already been to Care Inc., not having proper instructions on the point.
Mr James gave evidence that his income was currently sourced from rental assistance and Newstart, and after deductions of child support, electricity, rent, transport and other necessary expenses he was left with $97.36 per fortnight for food and other groceries. He gave evidence that despite his best attempts he had been unsuccessful in obtaining further paid employment, and it seemed that his income for the near future would remain Newstart.
Evidence was also given by Ms Julie Evans, a Program Manager with Supportive Tenancy Service. Mr Emerson-Elliot initially submitted that Ms Evan’s evidence would be in the nature of expert evidence as to her view of Mr James’s capacity to pay his rent and arrears ongoingly. However Ms Evans commenced her evidence by asserting that she has no financial qualifications and did not consider herself an expert. She gave evidence that she had been working with Mr James for some months, and her impression of him was that he had the organisational skills to stick to a budget.
Turning to the factors set out in subsection 49(3) of the RT Act, it was clear for paragraph 49(3)(b) that Mr James agreed he would be able to pay the rent in the future as it became payable, and that he would be able to pay off the arrears at the latest by mid-August 2012. However, I was not satisfied, as is required by paragraph 49(3)(a), that it was reasonably likely that Mr James would be able to make such payments.
In relation to repayment of the arrears, in the context of a private tenancy it is appropriate to expect arrears to be cleared in a relatively short-time frame, a matter of weeks or months. That this was the intended operation of subsection 49(4) is clear from the Report No 8 of the Community Law Reform Committee of the Australian Capital Territory in 1994 on Private Residential Tenancy Law (CLRC report), paragraphs 854 to 858. The suggestion that arrears should be paid off by much smaller instalments, over a lengthy period of time, may on a case by case basis be acceptable to some lessors (public housing organisations being one such example), but should not be accepted as a general rule. If there is any general rule as to the time frame within which arrears are to be cleared for a conditional termination and possession order, it should tend towards the “reasonably short period” contemplated by the CLRC report.
While Mr James gave evidence that he hoped he would be able to borrow money from a friend and obtain a centrelink advance, the loan from his friend was not certain and consequently I was not satisfied that he would be able to clear the arrears within a relatively short time frame.
I also was not satisfied that Mr James would be reasonably likely to meet rent payments in the future. There seems little prospect that his income will increase in the near future. I note that even with the assistance of an advance from Centrelink, and application of the bond monies, he has not managed to catch up all of the rent payments missed in 2011 and 2012. In particular, the monies that would have gone towards rent payments in March 2012, but for the operation of orders of the Tribunal in relation to the appeal, appear to have been absorbed into general expenses. I was also greatly concerned that the budget had no allowance for events such as a larger electricity bill over winter. In the end, I did not consider that Mr James in his current financial circumstances would be reasonably likely to meet his rent as it falls due in the future.
Consequently, I declined to exercise the discretion to make a conditional termination and possession order under section 49(4) of the RT Act.
Finally, I considered whether there remains a residual discretion to decline to make an unconditional termination and possession order under subsection 49(1) of the RT Act, although the preconditions for such an order exist. The use of the word ‘may’ in subsection 49(1) is indicative of such a discretion, although it may be that the exercise of that discretion is limited to the circumstances contemplated by subsections 49(2) and 49(3). This interpretation is supported by paragraph 854 of the CLRC report which recommended “If the tenant is not able to pay the rent owing and the ongoing rent, the Tribunal should terminate the tenancy.”
No submissions were made on behalf of Mr James that there was a basis on which the Tribunal could exercise any residual discretion in subsection 49(1), and I was unable to identify any basis on which, if such a discretion was available, it could properly have been exercised in this case.
Accordingly, at the conclusion of the matter I dismissed the counter-claim entirely and, being satisfied as to arrears of $900 proceeded to make an unconditional termination and possession order. Pursuant to subsection 49(5) that order was stayed for 21 days, the maximum period available, to enable

Mr James to take steps to obtain alternative accommodation.

………………………………..
Ms Mary-Therese Daniel
Member

PUBLICATION DETAILS

TO BE PUBLISHED

To be completed by Tribunal Staff

PART A

FILE NUMBER:	RT 12/525
PARTIES, APPLICANT:	Irena Zywezak
PARTIES, RESPONDENT:	Kerry James
COUNSEL APPEARING, APPLICANT
COUNSEL APPEARING, RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS FOR APPLICANT	Mr Moffett, Snedden Hall & Gallop
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT	Mr Emerson-Elliott, Welfare Rights & Legal Centre
TRIBUNAL MEMBERS:	Ms Mary Therese Daniel
DATES OF HEARING:	18 June 2012
PLACE OF HEARING:	ACAT Canberra

PART B

RECOMMENDATION:

FULL REPORT ( ) CASE NOTE ( ) UNREPORTED DECISION ( )

COMMENTS: