Connors v Street wise Property Management Services Pty Ltd t/as Bluant Rentals [2013] QCATA 137

CITATION: Connors v Street wise Property Management Services Pty Ltd t/as Bluant Rentals [2013] QCATA 137 PARTIES: Miss Julie Connors (Applicant/Appellant) v Streetwise Property Management Services Pty Ltd t/as Bluant Rentals (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL411-12 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Mr Gilbert Trafford-Walker, Judicial Member DELIVERED ON: 1 May 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: Leave to appeal refused. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL – LEAVE TO APPEAL – RESIDENTIAL TENANCY – where the applicant leased a property managed by the respondent – where the property was in a dilapidated condition – where there were health concerns by the discovery of exposed asbestos – where the Tribunal ordered that the lease be terminated and the respondent pay the applicant compensation by way of a rent reduction – where the applicant appeals that decision – where the applicant has made additional claims for loss and damage – whether leave to appeal should be granted Building Act 1975, s 248 -- 1 of 3 -- 2 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] In the latter half of 2012 the applicant brought an application in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking reduction of rent paid on a leased property and termination of the lease. [2] The application was heard on 19 November before Mr John Smith, Magistrate in Maryborough. The decision of the Tribunal was that the lease be terminated from midnight on 29 November 2012 and he ordered a reduction of rent payable in respect of the leased premises at $50.00 per week for 20 weeks from 9 November 2012. He ordered the lessor to pay the sum of $1,000.00 to the applicant within 1 month from 29 November 2012. [3] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that decision listing a number of additional claims for loss and damage which were not before the Tribunal in Maryborough. [4] The facts surrounding this dispute can be briefly stated. The applicant leased a house at 2/61 Richmond Street, Maryborough. The house, the subject of the lease, was old and in need of maintenance. The house had been examined by officers of the local council and the result of that examination was placed before the Tribunal. This established that the house was being investigated for possible breaches of s 248 of the Building Act 1975. It was described as being in a dilapidated condition, missing panes of glass, leaking roof sheeting, missing and broken external wall cladding, unsafe back steps and damaged timber floor joists and bearers. In addition to that it was discovered that asbestos, which had been used in some parts of the house, was exposed. [5] The applicant sought a reduction in the rent and also termination of the tenancy. However, at the hearing she did not want immediate termination of the tenancy because she was having difficulty finding alternate accommodation. The Tribunal was faced with a difficult decision. The applicant should not stay at the residence because of the danger to her health caused by the asbestos, but she was unable to find alternate accommodation. [6] Those acting for the lessor alleged that some of the damage to the residence had been caused by the applicant however no final conclusion was reached in relation to that allegation. [7] In deciding a matter such as this the Tribunal is required to make an order which is fair and reasonable to the parties. In the circumstances it is difficult to see what other order could be made having regard to the requirement to deliver a fair and equitable result to the parties. Some -- 2 of 3 -- 3 reduction in rent was justified having regard to the state of the residence and the applicant should not continue to reside at the premises having regard to the asbestos. [8] In the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the Magistrate made the only order which could reasonably be made and that the order does deliver a fair decision so far as the parties are concerned. [9] I have examined this application. It includes additional claims for loss and damage suffered by the applicant. The main problem for the applicant was her inability to find alternative accommodation. In a document headed “Notice of intention to leave (Form 14)”, the applicant states that she intended to vacate the premises on 4 February 2013. I therefore assume that her accommodation problem has been solved. I also assume that if she has continued to pay rent on the Richmond house that it has been done at the rate which was set by the Magistrate. In the circumstances, in my view, this covers all matters that needed to be addressed in arriving at a fair and reasonable decision for all parties. [10] Leave to appeal is refused. -- 3 of 3 --