Victorian renter unsuccessfully argues landlord 'retaliated' with notice to vacate after 'trapped' child complaint
A Victorian tenant has lost a bid to stay in a rental property after unsuccessfully arguing the landlord gave her notice to vacate in alleged retaliation for complaining her child was trapped in their bedroom because a door handle was not fixed.
The tribunal heard the renter lodged 19 requests for repairs over the course of 12 months and the relationship with the landlord progressively deteriorated, including over a failed childcare business idea for the property.
"However, a renter does not have a right to be liked by, or be on good terms with, their residential rental provider," the published decision said.
Repairs requested related to no oven, kitchen taps dripping on a powerpoint, a shower door not opening, "unhealthy" and "dirty" heater vents, grass in the gutters and a "bursting" hot water system, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal was told.
READ MORE: Penthouse at former Sydney hospital breaks $14 million suburb record
VCAT member Filip Gelev found there was not enough evidence to back up the tenant's claim that her landlord grew "unhappy" with the list of requests for the property in a suburb in Melbourne's outer west, and that in response, he "retaliated" by giving her a vacate notice in February, 94 days before the end of the fixed-term lease.
The renter told VCAT the notice was handed down a fortnight after her child was "trapped" in the bedroom during a summer heatwave in Victoria because the landlord did not fix a faulty door handle in a "timely manner".
Property Listings
She said an "excessive number" of quotes from different tradespeople were sought for the various problems she reported, including three for the door handle before it broke. The landlord gave evidence that he was doing so to save money, not to delay the process.
In March this year, the renter applied to the tribunal to have the notice to vacate - dated for June 2023 - ruled as invalid. The landlord gave evidence he had not yet decided what to do with the property once the tenant left and he took possession.
READ MORE: Melbourne's property market is the hottest in 18 months. But will it last?
Notice to vacate for a property tenanted for six months or more (and no less than 5 years) in Victoria is at least 90 days, the tribunal heard.
The tribunal found if a renter is given notice to leave a home, it may be implied they were not "liked" by the landlord, but it does not make a notice to vacate invalid under the tenancy act.
Mr Gelev was not satisfied that the notice to vacate was the result of "animosity". He found it was because the landlord was rethinking what to do with the property and due to the relationship breakdown over the use of the premises as a business for the tenant.
The tenant argued that the landlord was not prompt in carrying out repairs, leading to her lodging to about 1000 emails, messages and phone calls. Mr Gelev accepted that the landlord was slow in addressing the repairs dated from June 2022 onwards - in some cases, after several months of "constant requests".
READ MORE: Live a 'stress-free' life at a $2 million rural hideaway with railway carriages to sleep in
It was not in dispute that some of the "large number" of repair requests weren't carried out, but others were.
However, VCAT found at no stage did the landlord respond to the renter with "displeasure", "threats" or "retaliation", and the pair signed a November 2022 agreement that she would be able to run a childcare business out of the property.
The landlord's insurance premiums went up because the address was registered to a business, and it was agreed the cost difference would be covered by the tenant. VCAT heard each had a different reason for why the childcare venture did not go ahead, but that the landlord alleged they were out of pocket.
"The residential rental provider said he had told the real estate agents that the renter could go ahead and open the business and the renter's failure to do so cost him money, because in the end he paid the higher insurance premiums without getting reimbursed by the renter," the decision said.
Nine has elected not to name the landlord and tenant.