VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Residential Tenancies Division
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LIST		VCAT REFERENCE NO. R2024/21354
CATCHWORDS	
Application for possession by rental provider – notice to vacate for breach of VCAT order under section 91ZO of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 – breach of duty to keep the rented premises reasonably clean – reasonable and proportionate assessment	

APPLICANT	Housingfirst Ltd	
RESPONDENT	FXC	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Member S Webb	
HEARING TYPE	Teleconference	
DATE OF HEARINGs	3 September 2024, 11 September 2024, 27 November 2024, 17 December 2024, 20 January 2025, 14 February 2025, 11 March 2025, 3 April 2025	
DATE OF ORDER	6 June 2025	
CITATION	Housingfirst Ltd v FXC (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 507	

Order
For the written reasons provided, the Tribunal orders that:
1.	Pursuant to section 17 of the Open Courts Act 2013 the name of the respondent renter is supressed. The respondent renter is to be known as FXC. The principal registrar is directed to amend the registrar accordingly.
2.	No person other than a party or the representative of a party may inspect the file in this proceeding unless there is a Tribunal order that permits such an inspection.
3.	The renter must vacate the rented premises by 4 July 2025.
2.	At the request of the person who obtained the possession order and on payment of the prescribed fee the principal registrar of VCAT must issue a warrant of possession to be executed within 30 days after the date of issue. This request may be made after 4 July 2025 and no later than 6 December 2025.
Warning to the renter: If you fail to vacate the rented premises by 4 July 2025 the residential rental provider can request the principal registrar to issue a warrant of possession. You may then be forcibly vacated from the rented premises by a police officer or an authorised person carrying out a warrant of possession.

S Webb
Member			

APPEARANCES:		
For the applicant	Leyla Besiroglu	
For the respondent	FXC
Matt Healy Justice Connect Homeless Law	

Reasons
1	This is an application by Housingfirst Ltd for possession of the rented premises pursuant to a notice to vacate served under s91ZO of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) (‘RT Act’). The basis for the notice is that the renter has failed to comply with an order of VCAT.
Suppression Order
2	The representative of the respondent renter requested that a suppression order be made to restrict publication of the name of the renter and restrict publication of any details that might identify the renter pursuant to s17 of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic).
3	It was stated that the suppression order is needed to avoid publication of confidential and personal information, in particular, the possible negative impact that this proceeding and written decisions may have on future applications by the renter for a tenancy.
4	The Tribunal considers it appropriate to provide a pseudonym for the renter to provide the renter some anonymity for future applications for tenancy. The Tribunal considers that this is the appropriate approach given the needs of the renter and the principles of open justice.
Background
5	The renter has resided at the premises pursuant to a tenancy agreement since August 2022. 
6	In August 2023, the renter was given a breach of duty notice by the rental provider. The breach notice stated that the renter had breached her duty to keep the rented premises reasonably clean, pursuant to s63(1) of the RT Act. This section of the RT Act states:
A renter must keep the rented premises in a reasonably clean condition except to the extent that the residential rental provider is responsible under this Act for keeping the premises in that condition.
7	The breach notice noted that the lack of cleanliness was causing a fire hazard due to the extent of the items that had been built up. The notice identified that the renter had previously been asked to clean the rented premises. The renter was given 14 days to rectify the breach.
8	As the renter did not comply with the notice the rental provider lodged an application for a compliance order under s209 of the RT Act. The application noted that the rental provider had attended the rented premises in October and November 2023 and the rented premises had not been cleaned to a satisfactory state.
9	On 26 March 2024, I made an order on related file R2023/33634 under s212 of the RT Act requiring the renter to allow access to the property to cleaners and assist them to return the rented premises to a reasonably clean state. This was to be completed by 15 June 2024 and there was to be no further breach of s63(1).
The Notice to Vacate 
10	The notice to vacate (‘NTV’) was issued on 19 June 2024 and sent by registered post to the renter. The NTV required the renter to vacate the premises by 11 July 2024.
11	The notice stated that the renter had had failed to comply with the compliance order of 26 March 2024. An inspection had occurred on 18 June 2024 with the renter present. The rented premises were said to
remain unliveable condition, including rubbish, furniture and belongings throughout, always, bathrooms, bedrooms and balcony rooms inaccessible, kitchen unusable and we were unable to inspect all the rooms due to access issues due to the volume of rubbish and personal items.
12	The renter did not vacate rented premises by 11 July 2024. The rental provider lodged the application for possession based on the renter’s failure to comply with the compliance order of VCAT under s91ZO of the RT Act.
13	For a NTV pursuant to s91ZO of the RT Act, the notice must specify a termination date that is not less than 14 days after the date on which the notice is given.
14	No concern with the terms or service of the notice have been raised by the renter or her representatives will.
15	The Tribunal finds that:
(a)	The rental provider was entitled to give the renter the NTV under s91ZO of the RT Act.
(b)	The NTV was valid and met the requirements of a notice to vacate in accordance with s91ZZO of the RT Act.
(c)	The NTV was sent by registered post to the rented premises and provided the renter with more than 14 days notice of the termination date after the notice was deemed to have been given to the renter.
16	The renter did not vacate the rented premises by the termination date in the NTV. The rental provider applied for possession of the property pursuant to s322 of the RT Act.
VCAT Proceedings
17	As detailed in the headnote of these reasons, there have been a significant number of hearings in this proceeding. Central to the number of adjourned hearings has been an attempt to be provided with clear evidence as to the state of the rented premises. Orders have been made requesting photographs to be provided by parties other than the renter, including from cleaners purportedly booked to attend the rented premises, and from the rental provider’s agents attending to inspect the property. Photos have been provided over time demonstrating the state of the rented premises however these were not sufficient to demonstrate the cleanliness of the rented premises and the renter’s compliance with the compliance order of 26 March 2024.
18	Accordingly, I determined to visit the rented premises personally to view the state of the property. I made specific orders on 11 March 2025 that notified the renter and her representatives that a site visit would take place at 9:30am on 3 April 2025 for the purpose of viewing the rented premises.
19	At 9:15am on 3 April 2025, two representatives of the rental provider, three representatives for the renter and I assembled at the foyer for the site visit. After a 30 minute delay we were escorted to the renter’s floor and invited to inspect the rental premises with the renter in attendance.
20	The site visit, which was recorded by telephone, demonstrated that the rented premises remained in an unclean state, with rubbish, clothes, furniture and belongings causing the site to be inaccessible, rooms unable to be viewed or used for the purpose which they were meant, damaged and not working appliances in the living room and kitchen, the balcony inaccessible and filled with items, the balcony doors open to the elements and unable to be closed due to the amount of items blocking the doors from closing.
21	The applicant has not complied with the order of VCAT to keep the rented premises in a reasonably clean state. Given the state of the rented premises as demonstrated in photos attached as evidence at the outset and subsequent listed hearings of the proceeding, and the viewing of the rented premises on the on-site visit of 3 April 2025, I find that the grounds for providing the NTV are made out.
22	In the submissions before the Tribunal, the predominant information provided referred to consideration of the factors as to whether it is reasonable and proportionate to make an order of possession.
The legislation
23	The applicable part of the RT Act are as follows. The notice to vacate was issued under s91ZO of the RT Act.
91ZO	Failure to comply with Tribunal order
(1)	A residential rental provider may give a renter a notice to vacate rented premises if the renter fails to comply with an order of the Tribunal made under section 212.
(2)	The notice must specify a termination date that is not less than 14 days after the date on which the notice is given.
24	The relevant provision of s212 of the RT Act states:
212	Orders of Tribunal
(1)	In the case of an application under section 209, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the person was entitled to give the notice and that it was not complied with it may make any or all of the following orders—
(a)	the person in breach must remedy the breach as specified in the order;
(b)	the person in breach must pay compensation as specified in the order;
(c)	the person in breach must refrain from committing a similar breach.
25	Under s330 of the RT Act, the Tribunal must make a possession order if satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case:
(a)	the residential rental provider was entitled to give the renter the notice to vacate and it hasn’t been withdrawn,
(b)	the renter is still in possession of the rented premises, and
(c)	it is reasonable and proportionate, having regard to s330A, to make a possession order taking into account the interests of, and the impact on, the residential rental provider, the renter and any other matters.
(d)	that the renter is still in possession of the rented premises after the termination date specified in the notice to vacate or notice of intention to vacate; and
…
(f)	that in the circumstances of the particular application, it is reasonable and proportionate having regard to s330A, to make a possession order taking into account the interests of, and the impact on, each of the following in making the possession order – 
(i)	the residential rental provider …; 
(ii)	the renter …; 
(iii)	any co-tenants or co-site tenants or other residents; 
(iv)	any neighbours or any other person who may be, or who has been affected by, the acts or behaviour of the renter, resident or site tenant to whom the notice to vacate was given.
26	In s330A of the RT Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the following matters for the purposes of determining whether it is reasonable and proportionate to make a possession order:
(a)	the nature, frequency and duration of the conduct of the renter which led to the notice to vacate being given, including whether the conduct is a recurring breach of obligations under a residential rental agreement 
(b)	whether the breach is trivial,
(c)	whether the breach was caused by the conduct of any person other than the renter,
(d)	whether there is an intervention order and any other relevant matter related to family violence,
(e)	whether the breach has been remedied as far as practical,
(f)	whether the renter has, or will soon have, capacity to remedy the breach and comply with any obligations under the residential rental agreement,
(g)	the effect of the Renter’s conduct on others as a renter,
(ga)	in the case of an application referred to in section 322A, any community impact statement provided by Homes Victoria
(h)	whether any other order or course of action is reasonably available instead of making a possession order,
(i)	the behaviour of the rental providers, and
(j)	any other matter the Tribunal considers relevant to the case.
Information before the Tribunal 
27	There was a considerable amount of information before me, including submissions by both parties, and information regarding the personal and family circumstances of the renter. 
Reasonable and Proportionate Considerations
28	For the purpose of considering whether it is reasonable and proportionate to make a possession order, the Tribunal must take into account each of the matters specified under s330A of the RT Act.
(a) the nature, frequency and duration of the conduct of the renter which led to the notice to vacate being given, including whether the conduct is a recurring breach of obligations under a residential rental agreement 
29	The issue of the cleanliness of the rented premises has been an ongoing issue for the renter. The tenancy commenced in August 2022. By July 2023, the rental provider had had issues raised with them regarding the cleanliness of the rented premises, including concerns that rooms were inaccessible and that there was food stuffs and other rubbish strewn around the premises.
30	Attempts were made to enter the rented premises from July 2023 onwards, including after a notice of entry was provided. For various reasons the inspection was delayed, including the renter advising it was not convenient for her, and when it was convenient, access to the premises not being provided due to a locked or jammed door. This practice of delaying access to the rented premises due to conflicting obligations and obstruction of entry continued throughout the next 18 months until the on-site hearing was required. This included changing the locks on the rented premises without consent.
31	An entry to the rented premises on 26 July 2023 demonstrated significant squalor and hoarding at the rented premises and a breach of duty notice under s63(1) of the RT Act was issued on 27 July 2023. The Tribunal has viewed photographs of the state of the rented premises at this time which demonstrate considerable amounts of rubbish in the rented premises.
32	A second breach of duty notice due to not keeping the rented premises reasonably clean was issued on 23 August 2023 after a routine inspection. It was noted that there had been some improvement. The Tribunal has viewed photographs of the state of the rented premises at this time which demonstrate there remains considerable amounts of rubbish in the rented premises.
33	A third breach of duty notice was issued because of the state of the rented premises on 11 October 2023. The Tribunal has viewed photographs of the state of the rented premises at this time which demonstrate there remains considerable amounts of rubbish in the rented premises.
34	The rental provider lodged an application under s209 of the RT Act for a compliance order based on the unsanitary and uninhabitable nature of the rented premises due to the failure of the renter to maintain the rented premises in a reasonably clean state.
35	The information before me on the application for a compliance order was sufficient for me to make a compliance order, with a requirement for cleaning, including allowing access to the rented premises for cleaners by 15 June 2024 and an obligation on the renter not to commit a similar breach of s63(1).
36	The rental provider returned to the rented premises on 18 June 2024 and provided evidence that the premises remained in a dirty and cluttered state, with rooms and the balcony unusable. The notice to vacate based on a failure to comply with the compliance order was issued. Subsequently an application for possession was lodged with VCAT.
37	The matter was listed before me on 11 September 2024. The renter provided some photos of the rented premises that she stated she had taken, that showed the property to be significantly changed from previous images, with a level of cleanliness that appeared well beyond the previous state of uncleanliness. Based on the history of the proceeding, I adjourned the hearing with a right for the rental provider, who attended the hearing after it had concluded due to technology issues, to renew the application if the property reverted to the previous state of uncleanliness.
38	On 9 October 2024, the rental provider renewed the application. The rental provider presented photographs of the rented premises taken on 1 November 2024 which showed the rented premises to be in a significantly unclean state.
39	On 27 November 2024, the matter was adjourned as the renter’s legal representative was unable to attend. Given the discrepancy in the photos from September 2024 to November 2024, I requested photos provided by the renter to be taken by an independent person, such as a cleaner she stated she was engaging, as I was concerned by the highly selective nature of the images provided.
40	Various hearings were listed but for a variety of reasons were unable to be concluded. The rental provider was unable to enter the rented premises for a variety of reasons, including where the renter did not allow entry despite an order of the Tribunal for an inspection to take place. Work commitments, interactions with the police and access issues were explained as reasons why the rental providers were not able to attend.
41	On 14 February 2025, VCAT received some further photographs taken by the renter showing an improvement in the cleanliness of the rented premises. Given a concern regarding the selective nature of the photos, and that they were not taken by an independent party as requested, further orders were made requiring additional information, and for the renter to allow the rental provider to attend the rented premises to take photos for themselves of the state of cleanliness.
42	Despite orders regarding access to be provided, the rental provider was unable to access the rented premises. Accordingly, I made orders for an onsite visit by me at the rented premises, with the rental provider, the renter and representatives for the renter in attendance, for the purpose of determining whether the rented premises was being kept in a reasonably clean state.
43	The renter was given a considerable amount of time, from the order of 11 March 2025 to the onsite attendance on 3 April 2025 to take steps to clean the rented premises prior to a reasonable state.
44	On attending the rented premises, I observed significant squalor and hoarding. The rooms that came off the central living area were inaccessible due to a mound of clothes and rubbish in the hallway. One bedroom was unusable because of the amount of items stored in the room. The renter’s daughter’s bedroom appeared cleaner than any other site and the renter advised that she had tried to clean it. The kitchen was covered with items and appliances appeared out of order. The balcony door was open and unable to be shut due to the amount of items that were stored there, leaving the rented premises open to the elements. A second access point from the balcony to the unusable bedroom was also open due to the accumulated items. The walls and roof were in a significant state of uncleanliness, with spatter of unknown origin evident across the rented premises.
45	The state of the rented premises on 3 April 2025 were in a worse state than any other stage of the proceedings, noting that the photos of the rented premises have been provided since July 2023. 
46	The rental provider submitted that the renter ‘has been given ample opportunity to rectify the condition of her property. Despite receiving the first breach notice in 2023, she has failed to address the issue. Subsequent breaches did not lead to any improvement in her responsibility for maintaining the property.’
47	I agree with this submission. I consider that there has been recurring breaches of the renter’s obligation to comply with s63(1) of the RT Act and the order of VCAT of 26 March 2024 has not been complied with.
(b) whether the breach is trivial
48	The breach is not trivial. The rented premises was new when the renter commenced residing in it, the complex having been completed soon before the rental provider purchased it in June 2022. The renter and her daughter have been the only residents of the rented premises. 
49	From being a brand new apartment, the rented premises are in a state that is close to being uninhabitable. The balcony doors are unable to be closed and allow for the elements to enter into the premises unchecked. Appliances in the premises are not working, including the oven and other kitchen items. The air conditioner does not work, reported by the renter to the rental provider, however the appliance cannot be repaired due to hoarded items and the state of the premises.
50	The state of the rented premises requires significant works to be completed on the rented premises. The rented premises need a significant industrial clean, with a considerable number of items required to be disposed of. 
51	Once the rented premises is  cleaned and cleared, the rental provider will be in a position to complete the repairs that will be required to be completed on the rented premises, including repairing appliances that cannot be repaired due to the premises being unable to be safely accessed by maintenance contractors engaged by the rental provider.
52	I do not accept that the breach was a trivial matter.
(c) whether the breach was caused by the conduct of any person other than the renter
53	There is no other person alleged to have caused the breach. The renter has a 15 year old daughter who resides with her, however as observed at the onsite visit, the daughter’s bedroom appeared the cleanest of the property. The renter acknowledged that the state of the rented premises was due to her actions and no one else.
54	I do not accept that the breach was caused by the conduct of a person other than the renter.
(d) whether there is an intervention order and any other relevant matter related to family violence
55	The submissions for the renter state that the renter has been the victim of violence at a different rental address in the past.
56	I am not aware of any current applications or protective orders made under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) or the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 (Vic).
(e) whether the breach has been remedied as far as practical
57	The history of this proceeding, as illustrated in (a) above, demonstrates that the renter has not remedied the breach as far as practical, to now. This is despite the opportunity that she has been afforded over an extended period of time to rectify the cleanliness issues. Both the rental provider and VCAT have provided the renter with assistance, the rental provider providing referrals to agencies that may provide support to the renter, VCAT providing an extended amount of time for the renter to demonstrate her ability to rectify the breach. I note that the renter’s submissions argue that the rental provider has not been as effective as it is required to be to provide support to the renter.
58	I am not convinced with this submission. While I agree that the rental provider has obligations to support the renter under its agency agreement, the information before me shows that referrals to entities such as Sacred Heart Mission have been made but have not been taken up effectively by the renter, with Sacred Heart Mission providing information regarding closure of support due to lack of engagement with the organisation. Not getting access to the property, a common issue, is cited as part of the reason support was withdrawn.
59	Despite the opportunity provided to the renter, the breach has not been rectified.
(f) whether the renter has, or will soon have, capacity to remedy the breach and comply with any obligations under the residential rental agreement
60	The renter and her advocates have provided information about the renter’s capacity to remedy the breach. It was submitted that there were friends who have volunteered to assist the renter in sorting through her belongings, bringing a skip in to dispose of unnecessary items, arranging for professional cleaners, getting new and undamaged property and assisting with paying for costs incurred in cleaning up.
61	The renter listed support services who she has sought to engage with, with limited success to this point in time. It was stated that the renter would seek to recommence programs with agencies that she has previously been engaged with, such as Sacred Heart Mission. More time was requested for these attempts to be engaged with for the purpose of cleaning the rented premises. The renter told me that she had in fact had a cleaning company in the past, which she admitted was an irony given the state of the rented premises when it was visited.
62	Contrasting this stated intention are the past practices of the renter. It was stated on numerous times to me that a cleaning organisation was being engaged and would be coming on board to assist in cleaning the rented premises and keeping it reasonably clean. My compliance order of 26 March 2024 stated that the ‘renter must comply with section 63(1) by allowing access to cleaners to the property and assisting them to return the property to a reasonably clean state’. My order of 27 November 2024 required photographs of the rented premises to be provided by an independent person, such as a cleaner. These orders reflect the repeated statements of the renter that cleaners were in the process of being engaged to assist in cleaning the rented premises. An adjournment was provided on 17 December 2024 on the basis that ‘cleaners booked to complete the work were delayed in attended the rented premises out of the control of the renter’.
63	No evidence was presented to me that cleaners had ever attended the rented premises from the time of the 26 March 2024 order to my attendance at the site on 3 April 2025. Even considering the delays on cleaners commencing as stated in the order, I am not convinced on the evidence that any cleaner ever attended the rented premises to assist the renter clean the property during this time.
64	The renter provided evidence that she had rented a space in a storage facility to move personal effects from the rented premises offsite. This occurred in late 2024 and some commentary was provided that items had been moved to the offsite storage. However, the renter’s final submission noted that she has not yet used the unit to store any belongings, and the renter apologised if they had misled me to think that this storage unit had been used. The submission stated that the renter had issues finding and opening the unit in the facility and arranging a car to transfer items to the storage facility.
65	The renter’s past practices are relevant in considering whether the submissions that things will change are credible. The renter has had an extended time to take steps to bring her property to a reasonably clean state. She could have engaged her friends to assist her in the manner in which she stated would occur, but has not done so, even with the pressures upon her.
66	She could have engaged with services to support her, rather than wait until after the site visit to say this was what she was planning on doing and providing information about further attempts to get assistance.
67	The information from Sacred Heart Mission demonstrates that even when services are in place the practice of the renter is not conducive to engaging with these support services.
68	While respecting the submissions about what is planned to occur, I have limited expectation that it will occur, given the extended time that has passed in this matter. I am not satisfied that the renter has the capacity to remedy this breach and comply with the obligations under the rental agreement.
(g) the effect of the renter’s conduct on others as a renter
69	The renter resides in a newly constructed apartment complex. The amenities of the complex are in good condition, and there is a level of security as experienced at the rented premises that means that visitors and guests have to be escorted to the floor of the renter. The rental provider purchased the property to provide subsidised accommodation amongst owner occupiers and private rental arrangements.
70	The rental provider’s submission stated that the property poses a fire hazard due to the non-functional smoke alarm and non-compliance with building safety standards. Additionally, it was stated that the renter has frequently left hard rubbish in common areas, causing inconvenience and safety concerns for other residents. This was not evident on the day I attended the rented premises. It was further pointed out that a property left in such condition can contribute to a pest issue that can spread to neighbouring units.
71	The rented premises is at the end of the corridor on the floor, with one apartment adjacent and one opposite. The balcony faces southwest and the accumulated items on the balcony would be visible from outside the complex.
72	I accept that the state of the rented premises would affect residents in the vicinity of the rented premises, and that the state could pose a fire risk as stated. However, I have not received any submissions from any of the nearby residents, so I place little weight on this consideration.
(h) whether any other order or course of action is reasonably available instead of making a possession order
73	This matter commenced by way of breach notices, and a subsequent compliance order for the renter to bring the rented premises to a reasonably clean state and maintain them in that manner. The application for possession was made when the renter failed to comply with the compliance order.
74	As the history of hearings in the matter demonstrates, the renter has been given a significant amount of time to comply with the compliance order or take steps to bring the property to a reasonably clean state such that it would not be reasonable and proportionate to make a possession order. The time provided has not led to the rented premises being brought to a reasonably clean state. 
75	Given that a previous compliance order has been made and not complied with, I do not consider it appropriate to make a further compliance order in this matter.
(i) the behaviour of the rental providers
76	This is not a relevant consideration in this matter.
(j) any other matter the Tribunal considers relevant to the case
77	The renter has provided a number of matters for me to take into account.
78	It was stated that the renter has suffered significant hardship in her life which has impacted her mental health. The traumatic death of her husband in 2015 led to a stable life being overturned and entering supported housing from 2017 onwards. The renter has lived in locations that has led to her being at risk, including 2 previous serious assaults at a previous address she was renting. The rented premises which she now resides in is a safe and secure environment for the renter and her daughter. The importance of a safe and secure environment was emphasised in the submission given the trauma the renter has experienced in the past and the help she was now starting to receive.
79	The submission provided after the final hearing stated that the renter had recently had a preliminary telehealth appointment and subsequently attended an appointment where a diagnosis of ‘anxiety/depression’ was identified and the renter put on a Mental Health Care Plan. I note that this medical information regarding the renter seeking professional medical support was not included in the previous submission on behalf of the renter provided in December 2024 and it is a positive step that the renter has sought assistance. I do note that evidence of the renter attending 7 telehealth counselling sessions in May to December 2021 was also provided with the latest submission.
80	The renter has a teenage daughter who lives with her and it was submitted that evicting the renter and her daughter from the home would significantly disrupt the child’s development at a formative stage. Being rendered homeless would affect the daughter’s ability to attend school and participate in community activities. I do note that the evidence of the renter at the onsite hearing was that her daughter was planning on leaving school and commencing employment, but I accept that a possession order would cause significant disruption to the renter’s daughter.
81	The renter has limited income, being supported by Jobseeker and Family Tax Benefit payments. She has no family in Victoria to support her.
82	It was submitted that the renter was trying to engage or reengage with support services, such as Tenancy Plus, Launch Cheltenham and back to Sacred Heart Mission. The submission stated that at that time there had been limited success in making connection.
83	It was submitted that it was not reasonable and proportionate to make the renter and her daughter homeless in circumstances where steps could be taken to remedy the breach that had led to the application.
84	Finally, the submission noted my obligation to consider the renter’s rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (‘the Charter’). It was submitted that the Charter right relevant to the present matter is the right not to have one’s privacy, family or home unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. It was stated that if a possession order was made and the renter evicted, she and her daughter would be at serious risk of homelessness and the enjoyment of this charter right would be infringed.
85	I have considered the Charter’s impact on the renter in coming to my determination.
86	The rental provider has stated that they are an organisation that provides supported housing and recognise that their clients, such as the renter, have difficult circumstances. The rental provider has policies in place that operate when they have an order of possession, and that they seek to assist renters who are required to vacate a rented premises find new accommodation rather than make the evicted renter homeless. An order of possession is not acted on immediately, and the six month period provided before the order and the opportunity to purchase a warrant expires can be used to facilitate a transfer to another accommodation.
Further Consideration of Reasonable and Proportionate matters
87	This a challenging set of circumstances. The renter has and is continuing to experience difficulties in her circumstances; grief from the sudden traumatic death of her husband and father to her daughter; unsettled accommodation and reliance on supported housing programs that organisations like the rental provider provides. The renter and her daughter were allocated a newly built premises to live in in 2022, secure in their home and away from the trying circumstances that they had previously experienced.
88	Unfortunately, within a year of the renter commencing residence the state of the rented premises had deteriorated to such an extent that a breach notice was issued regarding the state of cleanliness in the rented premises. On the evidence before me this state has not significantly improved over the next almost two years, culminating in the state of the rented premises on the site visit on 3 April 2025.
89	The renter has not assisted herself in this process. Multiple attempts by the rental provider to attend the rented premises and inspect the state of cleanliness were stymied by the renter for a variety of reasons provided. The renter has provided images of the property which she claimed were the current state of the property which on face value did not accord to the actual state of the rented premises. In each hearing the renter was advised about the need for her to take steps to bring the property to a reasonably clean state. The rental provider pushed for an earlier resolution of the application but multiple opportunities, and importantly, time, was provided for the renter to work with the rental provider to resolve the cleanliness issue. Despite these opportunities, the renter stopped the rental provider from attending the rented premises and no independent photos were provided regarding the state of the premises.
90	The renter has made promises and assertions about cleaners coming to the rented premises to assist in cleaning, then provided excuses as to why they have not attended. Despite the significant time provided, no independent cleaning has been completed on the rented premises.
91	The highly unusual step of convening a hearing at the rented premises in person was taken to circumvent the ongoing challenge on getting a true picture of the state of the property. Time was provided from the setting down of the onsite hearing, giving the renter the opportunity to bring the rented premises to a reasonably clean state. Unfortunately, this time was not used to achieve this goal. The promises that things will change, will improve, that the property will be reasonably clean, these have been made repeatedly and not been kept. That friends say they are prepared to support the renter now, at the very last opportunity, raises the question as to why they were not available in the 22 months leading up to the onsite hearing on 3 April 2025 to assist the renter live in a reasonable clean state. 
92	The rented premises, as they appeared when last seen by me, are not reasonably clean. It is certainly arguable that they are not fit for habitation, given the state of the premises, but that is not the basis of the application for possession. Given the state of the property, with balcony doors unable to be closed and causing multiple rooms to remain open to the elements, the state of the property is likely to get worse. There is a room that could not be inspected and the renter unable to use it due to the accumulation of items in that room. The renter is required to make a space in the living room to sleep on a couch, surrounded by debris. The situation is presently untenable, and I do not believe that it will improve. 
93	There are already concerns about fixtures being damaged and appliances in the rented premises not working, and the rented premises are unable to be serviced by maintenance due to the state of the property. The maintenance services simply cannot access the areas that need repairing due to the accumulated clutter and debris that exists in the premises. The property requires significant works to bring it back to a reasonably clean state and repairs to ensure that the rented premises meet the minimum standards required of a rental premises. This work cannot be completed with the rented premises in the state they are in, and I am not satisfied that the renter, even with support, is capable of bringing the rented premises to a reasonably clean state such that the works that are required can be completed.
94	The submissions of the renter correctly identify the challenges that the renter and her daughter currently face, and how an order of possession will make it even more difficult. I agree that this order will make it more difficult for them and that there is a risk that the order I make may lead to homelessness. However, I also note that there are steps in place to assist the renter and her daughter to avoid being made homeless and I consider that the rental provider will assist in making appropriate referrals to support agencies to assist the renter in this regard.
95	I note the Charter right not to have one’s privacy, family or home unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with, and I accept that this order will interfere with the renter’s right to a home in this property. However, I do not consider that this is an illegal or arbitrary act that is causing this interference, and that the provisions of the RT Act allow for such orders to be made, and the extended effort to assist the renter to meet her obligations as a renter demonstrate this is not an arbitrary act. 
96	Taking into account all of the evidence that is relevant in this case and the interest and impact on the parties by considering matters under s330A of the RT Act, and for the reasons identified above, I am satisfied that it is reasonable and proportionate to make a possession order.
Compensation 
97	The application included a claim for compensation in the amount of $3,000. This figure was reached, as stated by the rental provider, based on costs to repair a different property. I note that this figure was requested in the application for a compliance order and continued into this application. The request for compensation was not pressed by the rental provider in any of their submissions.
98	The submission from the renter correctly identified that s91ZO of the RT Act does not include a provision for compensation to be provided. It further noted that there was no evidence provided to support the ‘claim’ for compensation.
99	I agree that a possession application under this section of the RT Act does not include a provision permitting an order for compensation. Accordingly, no order as to compensation is made.
Date of Possession order
100	As it is reasonable and proportionate to do so, a possession order must be made. In determining the date the renter must vacate, it was the request of the renter that if an order of possession was to be made, the maximum time be provided for the renter to vacate the rented premises. Given the consequences of this order, the need for the renter to make appropriate applications with other accommodation providers to find alternative accommodation, it may take some time for these steps to be undertaken.
101	As such, it is appropriate that the maximum time is afforded to the renter to vacate the rented premises and in accordance with s333(1)(a), a date that is 30 days from the date of the possession order will be provided.
102	As the date to vacate is 30 days from the date of the order, the Tribunal has no power to delay the issue of the warrant, with any delay under s352 of the RT Act limited to the same window of 30 days from the date of the order.
103	The rental provider will have six months in which to request the issue of the warrant and the time in which the warrant must be executed, once issued, will be 30 days. 

S Webb
Member