Property management company, Oaks Property Management was also ordered to pay $2,000 to the tenant to take some responsibility for the maintenance breaches by Grover Investments.

The compensation for breach of obligation to maintain the premises and loss of quiet enjoyment follows five years of complaints by the tenant of a leaking roof causing dampness and mouldiness and then inadequate repairs made by Grover Investments.

The tenant, who has name suppression, started living at the property in September 2015, paying $510 a week until an increase to $550 a week.

During that time the tenancy was managed by three different property management companies.

Over the five years, the tenant claims Grover Investments breached their maintenance obligations by not attending to a variety of issues in a timely way.

Since 2016 the tenant had provided the various property managers with lists of repairs and maintenance required at the property.

While some minor repairs were made, the main issue of roof leaks persisted. The tribunal was told some of the attempts to repair the roof were a temporary fix or inadequate.

The tenant’s main concern was water getting in and overall dampness creating an environment that was dangerous for her and her family.

Her two teenage sons were unable to use their bedrooms and were forced to sleep in the living room.

The tenant said the rooms were damp, the floor and ceilings were compromised and there was significant black mould on and under the carpets and underlay because repairs and maintenance had not been properly addressed.

Notified several times

Grover Investments was notified of multiple leaks between 2016-2020.

In June 2020, the tenant emailed Ms Sharma, property manager for Oaks Property Management emphasising they had been five winters with a still-leaking ceiling.

That day Sharma arranged for a roofer to assess the cause of the leak. She also made a claim to the landlord’s insurer.

The cause of the leak was found the next day and the repair work was also approved.

ChemDry, the landlord’s insurance assessor, visited the property on July 1, 2020 and told the tenant as there was gradual damage the insurance would be declined and the room would be sealed off until the damp and mould had been dealt with as the ceiling might cave in.

She was told there was also potential mould in the adjoining bedrooms and they should be avoided until inspected by a professional.

The insurer said the loss adjuster had strongly recommended Grover Investments urgently engage a roofer.

An application was made to the tribunal in July 2020 for a work order and compensation in the form of a rent rebate of $49,109, payment for damaged property $1,184 and the cost of a report by Contaminated Site Solutions for $384. She also sought exemplary damages.

Out of frustration due to the lack of action by Grover Investments, the tenant engaged Contaminated Site Solutions to carry out a visual mould inspection of the premises and report the findings.

The inspection was completed on September 3, 2020 and a long list of repairs were noted.

Shortly after a new property management company, BLC Properties, hired by Grover Investments, arranged a microbial assessment at the premises.

This suggested there was microbial contamination present within the bedroom one of the tenant’s sons had used.

A hearing was held on September 14, 2020 to consider the tenant’s application and the tribunal said it was satisfied there was mould at the premises that needed urgent attention and made a work order. The rest of the hearing was adjourned.

At the adjourned hearing in November 2020, the landlord indicated the hole in the roof causing the leak had been remedied.

However, this was disputed by the tenant who gave evidence the leaks persisted and there was more than one hole in the roof.

The hearing was further adjourned, and the landlord was directed to carry out a further investigation of the roof and remedial work.

By the reconvened hearing in April 2021, the work order had been complied with and most of the issues raised in the tenant’s July 2020 14-day letter had been remedied.

Landlord defends actions

However, on the issue of compensation Grover Investments disputed the tenant’s claim.

It said the property was in keeping with the age and character of the premises and had been reasonably responsive with addressing any problems when they had arisen.

On the extensive evidence presented by the tenant, the tribunal said Grover Investments breached its obligations by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, failing to remedy some of the problems in a reasonable time frame and failing to provide premises free from dampness.

The tribunal found although the tenant brought the problem of the ceiling leaks to the attention of the landlord in 2016, initial remedial work was ineffective and ultimately the job required was on a larger scale.

This issue remained unremedied until the matter was brought to the tribunal when evidence was heard of the effect of the leaks and other maintenance issues.

“The tenant and her family had to live with a severe issue for a prolonged period, that affected their ability to enjoy the property they were renting,” said adjudicator J Setefano.

“The landlord’s defence that the premises were only affected by leaks and damp when it was raining is ingenuous in light of the tenant’s notified incidences of dampness and mouldy carpet.”

Grover Investments claimed the leak issues had been attended to on several occasions and it had tried to work with contractors to look at how best to address the leak and a final solution.

But the tribunal said, ultimately, the worsening frequency of the leaks should have prompted Grover Investments much earlier to take the necessary step of a more robust investigation of the origin of the leaks and the extent of the problem. This did not occur.

Setefano said the tenant was entitled to compensation for the considerable inconvenience and stress, loss of use of a bedroom, disruption to her family and the loss of quiet enjoyment of the property they were renting.

The tribunal ordered $10,000 in compensation and Oaks Property Management was ordered to pay $2,000.

The tribunal said it must take some responsibility for the maintenance breaches. It could have, and should have, done more to warn and advise the owner that its failure to attend to the maintenance issues was a serious breach of its legal obligations.