All of us at one time or another have lived in houses that wouldn't feature in lifestyle magazines.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Anyone who's been in a share house knows exactly what I mean. At least if you own the house you only have yourself to blame. The situation can be different for tenants.
Now of course, none of the good citizens of Orange would ever rent out premises in less than ideal condition, but in the less well-heeled parts of the world, apparently it can be quite commonplace.
The general perception is that a tenant can't complain if they know the state of the premises before they went in. A case recently decided in Victoria may change all that.
In Shields v Deliopoulos [2016] VSC 500 the plaintiff, Ms Shields, rented a property from the defendant for about five years.
It was common ground that the property was in bad shape. Ms Shields alleged problems such as constant damp as a result of the property being in a flood zone, rat and mouse infestation, holes in the walls and ceilings, broken windows, a collapsed shed and general dirt.
At the time she entered the lease, Ms Shields had been living in a car, was struggling with mental health issues and had been unable to find anywhere else to live that she could afford. The rent was a very modest $125 per week.
After she had left the premises, Ms Shields brought a claim for compensation in the form of $50 per week of occupation for loss of amenity because of the dire state of the premises.
The initial decision in Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, the equivalent of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, was that what was reasonably required of the landlord in the Victorian Residential Tenancies Act to ensure that the premises were kept in good repair should be determined by "all aspects of the tenancy agreement, including the rent payable for the premises and the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy".
This was rejected by the Supreme Court. It held that a landlord's duty "is strict and absolute" and that there is an obligation on a landlord to "identify and rectify any defects of which they are aware or ought to be aware".
The court specifically rejected the notion that whether or not the state of the premises was acceptable or not should be qualified by their state at the start of the tenancy. Not only that, the court said that "the obligation of a landlord cannot be diluted by charging a low rent".
Granted these provisions relate to the law in Victoria, but there are similar provisions in the NSW Residential Tenancies Act and it is not difficult to see that this case would be referred to and potentially adopted by the courts in NSW.
So what does this all mean? Basically it means that it's no excuse to say that a house was in bad shape when it was rented out and therefore doesn't need to be repaired, or that the rent was made low specifically to deal with the state of the house.
A house up for rent needs to be in good repair. That doesn't mean that, for example, an old house has to have all new appliances, but it does mean that what is in the house needs to work properly.
The decision does have the potential to push up costs for landlords, and to further limit the availability of very low cost housing. The court was awake to this possibility, but noted that it was a matter for the politicians to resolve – I'm sure we are all holding our breath.