Landlord’s review refused: $3,350 to tenant left without drinkable tank water stands (SACAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenant rented a house on a property of more than 14 hectares, taking the house and the area immediately around it. Rent was $350 a week and the bond was $1,400. The property was not connected to mains water. Water reached the house through a system of tanks and connecting pipes, mostly fresh water with a small proportion drawn from a nearby river. The written agreement ticked a box saying the tenant would pay for water use, and said nothing else about water. The landlord also allowed another tenant to live in a shed or bus elsewhere on the property, and some of the tanks sat near that part of the land.

The tenant said the water quality began to fall away around October or November 2024. On 4 January 2025 she told the landlord there was no water at the house fit for drinking or cooking, and she reported the problem again on 19 January and 6 February. The Tribunal accepted that the water had started to deteriorate in December 2024. There was a drought in January 2025 which cut the river flow, and the tenant accepted she had also mistakenly let too much river water into the tanks because she misunderstood the taps. She had been given no written instructions about how the water system worked.

The landlord arranged one delivery of water, suggested the tenant buy a filter, and told her to sort out water sharing with the other tenant. She bought a filter, which did not fix the problem. She asked the other tenant to sell her water and he refused. The other tenant had a further tank delivered, but it arrived dirty and needed cleaning and a new tap. In the meantime the tenant boiled water, bathed in the ocean at times, went to stay with friends on one occasion in February 2025 so she could shower, fitted a temporary filter to the shower at her own cost, and tried to clean the tanks herself. While cleaning one tank she damaged the silicone seal; the landlord said fixing the resulting leak cost him $3,840.

Separately, the tenant said the other tenant, who the landlord used to deal with her about the property, intimidated her, stood over her and yelled at her, made unreasonable requests, and pressed her about a personal relationship they had had for a time. She eventually went to the landlord about it on 6 February, but the landlord still expected her to deal with that person about the water. She left the property on 18 March 2025 and applied to the Tribunal for compensation. In the original decision of 17 March 2026 the Tribunal awarded her $2,350 for the water supply breach and $1,000 for breach of quiet enjoyment, a total of $3,350.

What each side wanted

The landlord applied for an internal review. His representative, a retired solicitor acting as his advocate with the Tribunal's leave, argued that the original hearings were unfair because the Tribunal ignored the hearsay rule and limited cross-examination; that responsibility for the water system was shared, because the tenant had ticked the water use box, knew the system was complex and had been told she would struggle without help; that the poor water quality was never properly proved because the tenant called no expert and produced no receipts; that the tenant's own mistake with the river water caused the problem; that the rent was already low because the house was old and had no mains water; that the rent-free period at the end of the tenancy was worth $1,400 and should have been offset; and that the other tenant was never appointed as a property manager, so the landlord was not responsible for how he behaved. The tenant argued the water system was unreasonably complicated with no written instructions, the tanks were dirty when she moved in, the drought rather than her mistake was the main cause, and that the landlord's own choice to leave her dealing with the other tenant drove her to leave early.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal refused to grant leave for the internal review to proceed, which means the application for internal review was dismissed. The original order stands: the landlord pays the tenant $2,350 for the breach of the water supply obligation and $1,000 for the breach of quiet enjoyment, a total of $3,350.

On the way to that result the Tribunal went further than the original decision on liability. It found the landlord had also breached section 67 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 by not having the tanks cleaned before the tenancy began, and section 48 by not giving written instructions for the water system. It found no separate loss flowed from those two breaches beyond what the $3,350 already covered, so no extra compensation was ordered. It also accepted that about $1,000 of rent relief given at the end of the tenancy had properly been taken into account in the original figure, and rejected the submission that the relief was worth $1,400.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The Tribunal first rejected the complaints about how the original hearing ran. Section 39 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 says the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and must hear matters with the minimum of formality, according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case. Section 43 requires procedural fairness, which is a different thing from the strict court rules on hearsay and cross-examination. The Tribunal noted that the audio of the second day of the original hearing was inaudible and could not be transcribed, so it allowed both sides to file written summaries of that evidence and further submissions instead.

On the water, the Tribunal held that making sure a rented house has an adequate supply of water of acceptable quality is the landlord's job. It pointed to the Housing Improvement Act 2016 and regulation 11 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 2017, which require rented premises to have a sufficient and continuously available supply of water, and said being semi-rural with no mains connection does not remove that duty. The box about paying for "water use" was about who pays for water consumed, not about who is responsible for the supply system. Section 115 of the Residential Tenancies Act means parties cannot contract out of a landlord's obligations, so a low rent was no answer either. The water system was a "domestic facility requiring instructions" under section 3, meaning a device supplied for the tenant's use that a tenant could reasonably be expected to need instructions for, so written instructions were required under section 48.

Under section 68 a landlord must have the premises in a reasonable state of repair at the start, judged objectively against the age and character of the property, and must act with reasonable diligence to fix a defect once notified, unless the defect was caused by the tenant's negligent or deliberate acts. The Tribunal accepted that the water had become unsafe for drinking and household use without expert evidence, because that is self-evident and the landlord had never disputed it at the time. It found the landlord had not used reasonable diligence: he should not have left the tenant negotiating with another tenant who controlled her water, he should have checked and paid for the extra tank to be cleaned and fitted with a tap, he should have thought about sediment in tanks during a drought, he should have paid for a filter, and he should have arranged as many water deliveries as were needed rather than one. The tenant's mistake with the river water contributed, but did not absolve the landlord, particularly when no written instructions had been given. The Tribunal applied section 110(1)(c), which gives it a discretion to award a global sum for loss or inconvenience, and section 78, which requires a tenant to take reasonable steps to reduce their loss. Missing receipts affected the weight of the evidence but did not bar an award, and the tenant had mitigated by buying a filter, buying water and trying to negotiate.

On quiet enjoyment, section 65 requires a landlord not to interrupt the tenant's quiet enjoyment. The test is objective and the breach must be substantial. The Tribunal found the other tenant acted as the landlord's agent in ordinary common law terms, whether or not he was a property manager in any technical sense, and that in any event section 65(1)(c) made the landlord responsible for seeing that another of his tenants did not interfere. It allowed nothing for the period while the tenant had a personal relationship with that person, but held that once she reported her concerns the landlord should have made himself the only contact point for tenancy issues. He did not, and the abusive conduct that followed, including the refusal to supply fresh water, was a substantial breach that was a major reason she left early. Finally, because the decision under review was an order to pay money, section 114A of the Residential Tenancies Act allowed leave for internal review only in exceptional circumstances, and section 70(1a) of the SACAT Act required leave before the review could be dealt with at all. Having found the original award well within the Tribunal's discretion, the Deputy President was not satisfied exceptional circumstances existed and refused leave.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are renting a house that is not on mains water, this decision shows how South Australian tribunals treat responsibility for the supply. The obligation to provide a sufficient and continuously available supply of water of acceptable quality sits with the landlord, and a clause about paying for water use is read as being about the cost of water consumed, not about who maintains tanks, pumps and pipes. A low rent, a complicated system the tenant was warned about, or the tenant's own confusion with the taps did not shift that obligation, partly because no written instructions had been given for a facility the tenant could reasonably be expected to need instructions for.

The decision also shows what "reasonable diligence" looks like once a landlord is told about a problem. Suggestions, one delivery and directing the tenant to negotiate with someone else were not enough; the Tribunal expected the landlord to find out what was happening, arrange the work and pay for it. On compensation, missing receipts reduced the weight given to the tenant's evidence about her out-of-pocket costs but did not stop an award, because the Tribunal can set a global figure for loss and inconvenience. It also shows the limits of challenging a money order: where compensation has been ordered, an internal review needs leave, and leave is only given in exceptional circumstances, so a disagreement with how the discretion was exercised will usually not be enough.

If you are in a similar position, the decision is a reminder that what counts is whether the landlord was told about the problem and what they did next. The step most people take first is a written notice to the landlord or agent that sets out the defect, the dates it was reported and what needs to be fixed, with a deadline, before any tribunal application is made.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a SACAT application. More decisions: SACAT cases and house rentals and bonds.

Source: Ulanov v Cleopatra [2026] SACAT 85 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.