VCAT Member Conducts Site Visit To Inspect Premises: Housingfirst Ltd v FXC [2025] VCAT 507
Decision Date: 6 June 2025
Grounds: Notice to Vacate for breach of VCAT order under section 91ZO
Outcome: Possession order granted
Full case: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2025/507.html
In a detailed and challenging decision, VCAT has granted a possession order after a renter repeatedly failed to comply with orders to maintain the premises in a reasonably clean condition. This case illustrates the importance of ongoing compliance and the Tribunal’s careful approach to balancing renter hardship with property standards.
📌 The Background
The renter (referred to as FXC) had been living in a Melbourne apartment owned by Housingfirst Ltd since August 2022. Despite numerous requests and breach notices from mid-2023 onward, the renter consistently failed to keep the premises in a reasonably clean condition — a breach of section 63(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic).
Issues included severe clutter, unclean kitchen and bathroom areas, inaccessible rooms and potential fire hazards. After multiple breach notices and a compliance order issued in March 2024 requiring access for professional cleaners, the renter did not rectify the breaches.
When inspections repeatedly failed (due to access being denied or obstructions), VCAT ordered a personal site visit in April 2025. The state of the premises was found to have deteriorated further.
🧾 VCAT’s Findings
After reviewing extensive evidence, including photographs, on-site inspections and witness testimony, the Tribunal found:
The renter failed to comply with the compliance order despite multiple opportunities and support referrals.
The premises were in a worse condition at the final inspection than at any earlier point.
The breaches were not trivial — the property had become nearly uninhabitable, with severe risks to health and safety.
Repeated promises of future cleaning or support engagement had not materialised in over 18 months.
There was no realistic capacity for the renter to remedy the breach going forward.
In considering the reasonable and proportionate test under section 330A, the Tribunal balanced the renter’s personal hardship, mental health, and potential risk of homelessness against the severe state of the property and the rental provider’s obligations.
⚖️ The Legal Framework: Section 91ZO
Under section 91ZO, a residential rental provider can issue a Notice to Vacate if a renter fails to comply with a VCAT order. The Tribunal must then consider if granting possession is reasonable and proportionate, taking into account the conduct’s nature and impact on all parties.
VCAT emphasised:
Long-standing non-compliance and repeated delays undermine any argument for further extensions.
The renter’s mental health circumstances and potential hardship were acknowledged but ultimately outweighed by the ongoing risk and property deterioration.
Support options had been offered and not effectively utilised.
💬 Final Thoughts
The decision in Housingfirst Ltd v FXC underscores that while VCAT is mindful of renter hardship and Charter rights, it will not indefinitely tolerate serious and unresolved breaches. When premises reach a state of extreme disrepair and present health and safety risks, possession orders can be considered both reasonable and proportionate.
