Navigating the rental market can be a tricky affair, and for landlords and tenants alike, it’s a relationship that hinges on mutual respect and adherence to the law. However, things can sometimes go awry, leading to disputes that can escalate far beyond anyone’s expectations. Such was the case in a small town in Victoria, where a seemingly minor issue spiralled into a legal quagmire that serves as a cautionary tale for all parties involved in the rental market.
The ordeal began innocuously enough in Benalla, a quaint town nestled about 212km northeast of Melbourne when a tenant entered into a 12-month rental agreement for a charming two-bedroom weatherboard house. Little did the landlord and real estate agency know that this would mark the beginning of a protracted legal nightmare.
After the landlord was diagnosed with cancer, a decision was made to move their daughter, who has an intellectual disability, into the property to ensure she could be cared for during the father’s treatment. Consequently, the lease was renewed for a shorter term of six months in 2021. However, when the time came for the tenant to vacate, she refused, setting the stage for a series of legal battles that would involve more than 20 Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) hearings, two Supreme Court appeals, and a slew of disputes over rental arrears, property access, and maintenance.
The situation deteriorated further when, on New Year’s Eve, the tenant allegedly blocked her toilet with an excessive amount of toilet paper and demanded an emergency repair within 24 hours. Despite a plumber being dispatched, the damage was so severe that the toilet had to be broken to be fixed. The tenant’s behaviour reportedly escalated from there, including confrontations with property managers’ family members, sending threatening emails and sharing personal addresses of Ray White staff members on social media.
The tenant’s refusal to allow tradespeople entry for repairs and her confrontational correspondence with the rental agency only added fuel to the fire. In one instance, she referred to the agency as ‘a bunch of hacks’ and the landlord as ‘a greedy low-life’, expressing her desire to see them shut down.
In 2024, VCAT ordered the tenant to vacate and pay $20,907.40 in outstanding rent. The Supreme Court and its appeals court later awarded the landlord rent in arrears and legal costs, totalling between $80,000 to $100,000. Despite these rulings, the tenant continued to launch her legal actions, challenging the validity of notices to vacate and other matters.
VCAT senior member Kylea Campana, in delivering her decision, noted the tenant’s aggressive approach and criticism of the rental provider and agents on social media, stating that such behaviour would likely deter future rental providers.
The saga continues with ongoing legal cases, including a compensation claim from the tenant and an appeal against Ray White Benalla in the Federal Court. Meanwhile, Ray White Benalla is seeking costs through the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, with a hearing set for this week.
This case underscores the importance of thorough vetting and adherence to processes and regulations for property managers and landlords. Ray White Benalla has since advised property managers to conduct internet searches as part of the vetting process, follow recommended procedures, ensure compliance with all regulations, and not hesitate to seek advice and support when needed.
Have you ever found yourself in a rental dispute? How did you navigate the situation? Share your experiences and tips in the comments below, and let’s help each other avoid the pitfalls of property rental nightmares.
Also read: Be prepared: Your rent could skyrocket soon!
