Public housing eviction case reinstated on review after it was dismissed as misconceived (SACAT, 2026)

What happened

The South Australian Housing Trust is the landlord of a long-term public housing tenant. On 10 October 2025 the tribunal had made an order in an earlier case that included a payment plan for rent arrears (Order 1), and a further order (Order 3) that allowed the landlord to apply for another hearing if those payments were not made.

The tenant did not keep up the payments. She paid no rent between 19 March 2026 and 19 April 2026, and no rent at all from 1 May 2026. The landlord said the rent debt was in the vicinity of $10,000 and that this was the fourth tribunal hearing about it. Relying on the non-compliance, the landlord applied for an order for vacant possession, which is an order ending the tenancy and giving the property back to the landlord.

At the hearing on 22 June 2026 the landlord learned for the first time that the tenant's circumstances had changed: she had lost her job and her income had dropped. Under her conditions of tenancy and the landlord's published rent policy, a subsidised rent is set as a share of assessable household income, and the tenant must tell the landlord when that income changes and provide proof of it when asked. She had not done so. The landlord asked for an adjournment so a fresh rent assessment could be done. The member refused the adjournment and dismissed the application as misconceived, on the basis that it rested on incorrect assumptions about the tenant's income and that no payment plan could be fixed while the correct rent was unknown.

At the review hearing the tenant accepted she had paid no rent since 1 May 2026 and that she had not told the landlord about the change in her income, which she accepted she should have known to do. She said she had suffered significant mental health problems after losing her job, that her son had moved out taking six weeks of rent money with him, that she had since found part-time work earning about $450 a week, and that she had an appointment with an Anglicare financial counsellor. She wanted to stay in the property and make payments towards the rent and the debt.

What each side wanted

The landlord asked for leave to bring an internal review and for the dismissal to be set aside. It argued that its right to apply for a further hearing depended only on the tenant having failed to make the ordered payments, that the application was therefore not misconceived, that the member should instead have decided whether the earlier order was breached, whether the rent needed reassessing, what the correct arrears were and what orders followed, and that refusing the adjournment denied it a fair chance to deal with the very issue the dismissal turned on. At the review hearing the landlord said its preference was still vacant possession, given the size of the debt, the delay in lodging the rent review form until 17 July 2026, the failure to pay any rent since 1 May 2026 while receiving Centrelink payments, and the poor payment history, but it agreed the matter could instead be adjourned with directions and payments. The tenant agreed with that approach and asked to stay in the property.

What the tribunal decided

The Deputy President granted leave for the internal review to proceed, set aside the order of 22 June 2026, and substituted new orders. The application was adjourned for another hearing on a date to be advised by the tribunal registry, but not before Tuesday 1 September 2026.

The tenant may remain in the property until the next hearing provided she pays the landlord $250 by close of business on Friday 24 July 2026, $350 by close of business on Friday 31 July 2026, $350 by close of business on Friday 14 August 2026, and $350 by close of business on Friday 28 August 2026. If she fails to make any of those payments, the landlord may write to the tribunal, enclosing an up-to-date rent record, and ask for an urgent hearing to terminate the tenancy and evict the tenant.

The tenant was also ordered to give the landlord evidence of her current household income, such as bank statements and Centrelink statements, by close of business on Tuesday 28 July 2026, and any other information the landlord requires about her household income within 7 days of a request.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The review was brought under section 70 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, which requires the tribunal on review to make the correct or preferable decision, taking into account the evidence at the original hearing, giving appropriate weight to the original order, and taking into account any other evidence it considers relevant. An internal review application necessarily includes an application for leave, and leave was granted.

The key finding was about what the landlord's right to apply actually depended on. The earlier order of 10 October 2025 allowed a further hearing if the ordered payments were not made. That condition was satisfied, and it was the only condition. The right to apply did not depend on the landlord first asking why the payments were missed, and it did not depend on the rent having been correctly assessed against the tenant's actual current income. So the change in the tenant's income, and its effect on the rent, did not touch the basis on which the application had been made. It followed that the application was not misconceived.

Section 48 of the SACAT Act allows the tribunal to dismiss proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious or improper. Because the application was properly made on the tenant's non-compliance, and because the landlord had considered whether it was appropriate to apply before doing so, that power was not available here. The Deputy President also held that an inability to make a final order on the day of the hearing is not itself a reason to dismiss: the proper approach is to look at what other courses are open, including an adjournment. The tenant's own obligations mattered to this reasoning. Her conditions of tenancy provided that rent would be reviewed in line with the rent policy, that a subsidised rent is based on a percentage of assessable household income and is reviewed whenever income changes, and that a subsidy based on incorrect, incomplete or out-of-date information can be charged back. The published rent policy required her to tell the landlord of her household income, prove it, and report changes.

The correct order on 22 June 2026 would have been an adjournment, so the tenant could provide updated income information, the landlord could reassess the rent, and the tribunal could then properly consider what orders to make. That was described as fair to both parties and consistent with the tribunal's general approach. The Deputy President also noted, as a separate matter, that the tenant could seek advice about applying for her debt to be reduced under a different process in the South Australian Housing Trust Act 1995, and about financial assistance and payment arrangements through her financial counsellor or Rent Right SA.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how a tribunal looks at an earlier order that gives one side the right to come back. The question is usually narrow: does the order say the right to a further hearing depends on something, and did that thing happen? Here it depended only on whether the ordered payments were made. Matters that arise later, like a change in income or a rent figure that needs recalculating, can be very important to what orders are finally made, but they do not retrospectively make an application improper if it was properly based when it was brought.

The decision also shows the difference between a case that cannot be finished today and a case that should not have been brought. The power to dismiss proceedings as frivolous, vexatious or improper is for the second kind. Where a figure is unknown or a party needs time to produce documents, adjourning with directions and interim payment dates is the usual course, and both sides here ended up agreeing to that. For tenants, it is also a reminder that obligations in a tenancy agreement and a landlord's published policy, such as reporting a change in income and proving it on request, carry real weight when the tribunal decides what to do next.

In rent arrears disputes of this kind, the step most people take first is a written notice or demand that sets out the amount owing, the period it covers and a date by which it must be paid or the information must be provided, before any tribunal application is made. Keeping a clear, dated record of the arrears and of what each side was told is what the tribunal works from later.

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

Source: South Australian Housing Trust v Sowden [2026] SACAT 90 (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.