Canberra tenants sue landlord for faulty air-conditioning
Two apartment tenants in Canberra who sued their landlord for faulty airconditioning and a failure to provide Foxtel have been awarded $3788 in compensation.
The tenants, Emilio Broso and Hyeyoung Sun, signed a 12-month rental agreement for the apartment in September 2012.
They filed a case with the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) on 15 July 2013, seeking to terminate the residential tenancy agreement, and compensation.
According to ACAT, The tenants contacted their property manager from Ray White Canberra on December 2012, alleging that that the air-conditioning “turned itself off every 20 minutes”, but was not satisfactorily repaired until March 2013.
Due to extreme temperatures above 30°C, the tenants alleged that they were unable to to sleep because of the heat.
In addition, the tenants alleged that the premises was not properly secure, and that despite being told Foxtel was connected in the property, it was not.
The tribunal found the air-conditioning issue was a breach of the landlord’s obligations, and ruled that the tenants be compensated $3048, 65% of the rent paid during the hot months of December 2012, as well as January and February 2013.
In addition, the landlord was ordered to compensate $610 to the tenants, the equivalent of five months’ Foxtel subscription fees.
In relation to the security of the premises, the tribunal was not satisfied with the evidence presented.
Broso told Property Observer that he contacted Ray White Canberra in November 2011 about faulty airconditioning in the apartment, but it was only fixed in March 2012.
“Ray White don’t (sic) really care about us, they sent a few people to fix up the problem, but the problem wasn’t fixed up until after five months,” Broso said.
He said that they changed a number of agents in a year and that nobody knew about the problem. After winning at ACAT, he notes that he is waiting for the payment.
Broso also alleges that he spoke to the landlord recently, and the landlord was unaware of the events that transpired with the exception of a phonecall in November 2012, that informed him of the issue with the air-conditioning.
Ray White spokesperson Lisa Pennell told Property Observer it was “not ideal” that the repair of the air-conditioning took four months.
Providing an account of the incidecent, she said on December 12 2012 the tenant reported the issue with the air-conditioning via email, and a maintenance work order was issued on the same day. However, that particular company failed to get back to Ray White by January 22 2013. Ray White then issued a separate work order to another company, who only managed to get in touch with the tenant on January 25 this year.
On February 13 this year, the company provided an update to Ray White that they were awaiting information about parts to supply a quote. The next day, on February 14, they provided an estimate that it would be cheaper to replace the air-conditioning unit than repair it.
However, on February 20, the owner responded that the air-conditioning unit was still under warranty, and instructed Ray White to contact the company handling warranty repairs. The company then undertook repair work on the air-conditioning unit, which was completed in April 2013.
Pennell also told Property Observer that there was “extensive communication” between Ray White Canberra and the landlord throughout the tenancy.
Responding to the tenant’s claims that Ray White Canberra changed six or seven agents during his tenancy, Pennell said, “The tenant would have had contact with a number of different people within the office during the normal course of business, including a leasing agent, receptionist, and property managers. One property manager did leave during the tenancy, otherwise the staff of the office has remained consistent. It is normal in a modern office for various parts of the property management process to be handled by different staff, and also for staff to be able to substitute for each other in times of illness or leave.”
She added that “numerous attempts were made to mediate the conflict prior to the tribunal hearing”, but it was unsuccessful.
Pennell also noted that the tribunal’s decision to award 65% of the rent to be paid as compensation to the tenant was “perplexing”, as cooling is not listed as an urgent repair in the ACT. She also felt the decision to award compensation for Foxtel was unusual, as the lease did not stipulate Foxtel as an inclusion.
She also said the owner is “currently considering appealing the decision.”
ACAT registrar Athol Morris told Property Observer that while a 65% compensation for four months' worth of rent is an "unusually high figure", it is "well within discretion".
"It is clear that the landlord has persistently failed to fix the airconditioning," Morris said.
With the Foxtel issue, Morris said, " The matter was heard, both parties were represented, the member decided it was what it was worth in this case."
Lisa Indge, managing director of property management firm Let’s Rent, advises that “best practice” for tenants should always be to report all repairs in writing unless urgent.
She says property managers should induct their tenants at the beginning of the tenancy to put all repair requests in writing, and if tenants ring the office, ask for them to send an email.
“Property managers should have systems in place to ensure (cases like this) this does not occur including a requirement that tenants report repairs in writing and a system of following up outstanding work orders,” she said.