PHOTO: RAWPIXEL.
Canberra Couple Awarded $1,500 in Damages After Real Estate Agent’s Bedroom Inspection
A Canberra couple has been awarded $1,500 in damages by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) following an incident where a woman was awoken by a real estate agent conducting an inspection in her bedroom. The real estate agent claimed he knocked on the door and called out after using a key to gain access, but this was disputed by the tenants.
Tribunal Findings
The tribunal ruled that the agent’s entry constituted trespass and that any consent to continue the inspection was obtained under duress. The woman, who was with her infant son at the time, testified to being “shocked” by the intrusion and hid under the bedsheets out of fear and embarrassment.
Details of the Incident
During the ACAT hearing, it was revealed that the woman had been in bed without her Islamic head scarf when she heard someone in the apartment. Subpoenaed footage showed the agent did not ring the doorbell before entering, contrary to his usual practice. The agent testified that he had knocked and called out before using a master key but this was denied by the tenants.
Agent’s Conduct
The real estate agent stated that he identified himself upon entering the bedroom, explained his purpose, and requested approval to continue the inspection. However, the woman refuted that he sought permission to proceed. She indicated that any acknowledgment she made was merely in response to his identity and purpose, not an approval of the inspection.
Video Evidence
Video evidence provided by the woman showed the agent walking around the room after his initial exit, contradicting his testimony that he had left immediately after completing the inspection. The footage, recorded from under the sheets, showed the agent’s legs and shoes for about three minutes.
Tenant’s Reaction
The woman expressed that she felt “trapped and concerned for [her] safety” during the incident, describing the agent as a “big man” and her position as vulnerable. This led to the couple deciding to break their lease and leave the apartment, seeking an apology from the agent which they did not receive.
ACAT Decision on Related Matters
The ACAT’s decision addressed two related matters: one brought by the tenants and another by the lessor. The landlord had previously obtained the couple’s full bond of $2,000 for alleged substantial damages to the property. The tenants sought various compensations, including $25,000 for privacy violation and religious discrimination, and their bond returned.
Tribunal’s Conclusion
The ACAT found that the agent’s entry did indeed constitute trespass and violated the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment. The tribunal noted that any consent given was under duress due to the woman’s fear and vulnerability. However, ACAT could not rule on discrimination claims as the matter had not been referred by the Human Rights Commission and found no evidence of financial losses due to the couple’s relocation.
Damages Awarded
The tribunal ordered the lessor to pay $2,135 to the tenants, covering $1,500 in damages and $635 for the application fee. In regards to the lessor’s claim for the entire bond, ACAT determined the property damage did not justify retaining the full bond and ordered $1,155 of the $2,000 bond be returned to the tenants.
The decision highlighted the tribunal’s view that the damage to the walls was largely “reasonable wear and tear” for the duration of the tenancy.
SOURCE: ABC