QCAT Issue

I thought that you would all be interested in another issue we are working on for a client.

Our client obtained a QCAT order for compensation for rent arrears, which represented some 95% of the amount awarded, bond was ordered to be paid to our client.

Then 24 days after the order was made the tenant has made application to QCAT for a re hearing, so far on the surface maybe so, but let’s now look at the facts from here –

1. the application fee was waved, that is the applicant did not have to pay the $255.00 application fee.
2. Quoting from the application part C3- The Reason for my application-
   1. “Are having trouble getting an income from center link. All because of the Law that I am not allowed to have any payment for center link because of the Law” – taken as written on the application. That really is sound grounds for considering granting a rehearing application.
3. Further in support of the application in part C4 – ” I cannot work because of my health. I have got doctors certificates from all doctors and center link. If you require the documents, I am very happy to supply them. In this case. I am very happy to discuss this with you. I have had no income since 17/01/11.” – again reproduced exactly as appears on application.

Based on this information you guessed it the applicant now has been given another chance to have the matter re-heard, but not for another 15 days.

We are currently preparing a submission for our client regarding the legislation so I will keep you updated on the progress of that.

However, the points I look to raise currently are of a different nature.

1. This applicant has been able to effectively stop the due process for recovery of the outstanding amount and more importantly now has effectively put everybody to extra work and cost in –
   1. preparing the submission to defend the application.
   2. the agent may very well have to attend and could spend 2 – 6 hours at QCAT waiting for the hearing.
   3. the applicant may not even attend on the day meaning that the matter should be dismissed.
   4. the applicant has been able to stall, apply at no cost, tie up the court and all other parties and walk away without any compensation to the parties involved.
2. Based on the submission how could anybody reasonably accept that there any grounds for a rehearing.
3. What sort of message does this send to our investors regarding the value of owning an investment property.

I would have to think and suggest  that we, as an industry, should be driving that we accept that any party to an action has rights but if it can be shown that a party has taken action that is spurious, vexatious and or without grounds then the aggrieved party should be entitled to some form of compensation. Without some sort of penalties for this type of action we leave ourselves wide open to frivolous claims being made on a more regularly.