Big Claim, Small Win: When Compensation Claims Go Too Far

Harris v Pulsoni (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 1107

Decision Date: 15 December 2025

Key Issue: Whether the renters were entitled to substantial compensation for alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic), including failure to maintain the premises, interference with quiet enjoyment, breach of agreement, and electricity charges where the premises were allegedly not separately metered.

Full Case:Harris v Pulsoni (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 1107 (15 December 2025)

Background

The renters entered into a 12-month fixed-term tenancy in January 2021 for a house located on a working farm. The relationship between the parties deteriorated during the tenancy, resulting in multiple Tribunal proceedings, including repair orders made in December 2021.

After vacating in November 2022, the renters brought a broad compensation claim totalling nearly $26,000. The claims covered alleged failures to maintain the property, breaches of quiet enjoyment, contractual breaches, and recovery of all electricity costs on the basis that the premises were not separately metered.

Key Issues and Findings

VCAT considered whether the rental providers breached their obligations under the Act and whether any loss claimed by the renters was proven and compensable.

1. Quiet Enjoyment

The renters alleged frequent unlawful entry and interference.
VCAT rejected this, finding:

• No evidence of repeated unlawful entry

• Farm activities occurred outside the rented premises

• Any access was for repairs or by agreement

Claim dismissed.

2. Failure to Maintain the Premises

Numerous issues were alleged, including water supply, septic problems, pests, fencing, and electrical issues.

VCAT found:

• Most claims were unsupported by evidence or exaggerated

• Some issues were caused or worsened by the renters themselves

• The rental providers had taken reasonable steps to carry out repairs

However, limited breaches were established:

• Hot water service inadequate → $209.03 awarded

• Windows/flyscreens issues → $69.30 awarded

All other maintenance claims dismissed.

3. Breach of Tenancy Agreement

Claims included loss of access to an outside toilet and removal of a fridge.

VCAT found:

• The outside toilet was not part of the premises

• The fridge was returned voluntarily by the renters

Claims dismissed.

4. Electricity – Separate Metering

The renters sought over $8,000, arguing the premises were not separately metered because electricity powered a water pump also servicing farm troughs.

VCAT rejected this, finding:

• The premises were separately metered

• The arrangement was disclosed and agreed in the tenancy agreement

• No actual loss was proven

• The claim would result in a windfall gain

Claim dismissed.

5. Additional Claims (Distress, Damages, Non-Compliance Register)

VCAT found:

• No basis for distress or exemplary damages

• Rental providers complied with repair orders

• Listing on the non-compliance register was not appropriate

Decision

VCAT awarded the renters $278.33 in total compensation for limited maintenance breaches.

All other claims—including the significant electricity claim and allegations of broader misconduct—were dismissed.

Key Takeaways

• Evidence is critical: Broad or exaggerated claims without supporting evidence will fail.

• Scope of premises matters: Farm areas outside the leased premises do not give rise to tenant rights.

• Separate metering requires substance, not technicality: Shared outcomes (like water use) do not necessarily mean a property is not separately metered.

• Mitigation and causation are key: Losses caused by the renter’s own actions, or not properly mitigated, will not be compensated.

• VCAT will avoid windfall gains: Compensation must reflect actual loss, not opportunistic recovery.