The tenant, who has name suppression, lived on a 1.5 hectare rural lifestyle block in a five-bedroom house with two bathrooms from May 2018 in a flatting arrangement with others, including the landlord Margaret Daly, through until March 2020.

Daly then moved out and the tenant stayed while a family also moved in. Each had exclusive access to their bedrooms and bathrooms and shared the use of the kitchen and main lounge.

In June last year the tenant and Daly signed a fixed term tenancy agreement ending on May 6 this year.

The tenancy ended and the bond was refunded. But the tenant went to the Tenancy Tribunal claiming compensation and exemplary damages for unlawful entry, failure to maintain the septic tank and lodge the bond on time.

The tenant told the tribunal her main concern was Daly needed to understand “where she had crossed the line”.

When living at the property, the tenant had ongoing problems for the last eight to nine months of her tenancy with the toilet often not flushing or draining, a persistent smell of sewage and blocked drains.

She had to use public toilets a number of times.

Daly acknowledged it had taken a number of visits from a septic tank company, plumbers and drainlayers to resolve and remedy the problems and the tenant had been inconvenienced and affected. But, the tribunal found she took appropriate action and did not breach her maintenance obligations. 

However, said the tribunal, a properly functioning toilet is essential, and the inconvenience to the tenant was considerable at times and it was appropriate she be compensated for the loss of facilities.

Daly and the tenant agreed on compensation of 30% of the total rent paid from March 1 to October 14 last year.

Misuse of power

When Daly moved out of the premises, the tenant described to the tribunal what she saw as a misuse of the landlord’s power, which reduced her ability to live undisturbed at the premises.

Included was Daly’s failure to lodge the bond on time and unilaterally changing the terms of the tenancy by allowing a family to move in.

This meant she had less space in the house and her belongings were moved out of the adjacent garage without consultation.

The tenant told the tribunal the family did not respect her space – using her side of the lounge, deck, entranceway and putting a trampoline on her part of the lawn – and Daly “allowed it”.

Daly did not deny the changed arrangements were made without consultation.

She told the tribunal she and the family were discussing an option to buy the entire property and this led to frustration about the tenant still living there and sharing the house. 

Concerns were raised by the tenant at the time and Daly agreed to two weeks of free rent as compensation for the changes and disruption at the premises.

Near the end of the tenancy and while the tenant was still entitled to be at the property, Daly padlocked vehicle access and went into the tenant’s area of the house without notice.

The tenant told the tribunal this prevented her from removing all of her belongings and impinged on her privacy.

She says people not known to her were given access to the house – including to her locked room – while her belongings were still there.

When she turned up to the property with a trailer to remove her belongings she could not get access.

The door to her room was open and a notice from the landlord was on the floor at the entranceway. This gave her a feeling of violation that people who she did not know had access to her belongings and to the house where she had lived for more than three years.

Daly confirmed she attached a padlock to the vehicle gate and authorised the locks be changed to the house because of concerns about the family who shared the house.

She did not tell the tenant or help her remove her possessions.

The tribunal found by these actions Daly had unlawfully taken back possession of the premises when she was not entitled to do so.

The tenant told the tribunal she felt Daly had abused her power and needed to understand that she could not treat tenanted premises as if she could do as she liked. The tribunal agreed and found the actions of Daly were intentional and significant and warranted exemplary damages of $800. 

“The public interest is that landlords understand a tenant is not merely ‘someone living in my property’, said adjudicator N Maplesden. “The tenancy contract (written or unwritten) gives rights of occupation.

“It is a tenant’s home and that must be respected.”