Public housing tenancy ended after tribunal finds the home was used for drug dealing (ACAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenant had lived in the public housing property in the ACT since 2013. By the time of the hearing the tenancy was periodic, meaning it ran on without a fixed end date. There were no rent arrears. From August 2025 to June 2026 the tenant was in prison for offences they pleaded guilty to. These included trafficking in a controlled drug, possessing a prohibited weapon, and possessing property suspected of being proceeds of crime. They were released on parole on 22 June 2026, after the hearing but before the decision.

In July 2025 the Australian Federal Police obtained a warrant to intercept the tenant's mobile phone. The police statement of facts recorded several calls and texts from July and August 2025. In them, people said things like 'I'm nearly at yours', asked if the tenant was 'at home', and asked for 'a shot', 'ice', 'two points' and similar. The tribunal understood these to be terms for quantities of drugs. Police also saw people visiting the home for about 15 minutes at a time.

On 13 August 2025 police arrested the tenant at a traffic stop and then searched the home. No drugs were found at the home. The tenant was carrying about 28.5 grams of methylamphetamine and 27.8 grams of heroin, each about five times the 'trafficable' quantity, and $860 in cash that was accepted as proceeds of crime.

On 6 November 2025 the Commissioner gave the tenant a notice to vacate, both by hand and by prepaid post, with a vacancy date of 2 December 2025. The notice relied on a breach of standard tenancy term 70(a), which says a tenant must not use the premises, or let them be used, for an illegal purpose. The tenant did not leave, and the Commissioner applied to the tribunal.

What each side wanted

The Commissioner asked for a termination and possession order, which is an order ending the tenancy and requiring the tenant to leave. It argued that drug trafficking from the home was a serious breach of trust and a risk to community safety. It also argued that the tenant's long history of substance use cast doubt on whether they would stay sober. The tenant opposed the application. First, they argued the tribunal had no power to act because the notice was defective. They said the Commissioner should first have given a 'notice to remedy', which is a notice giving the tenant a chance to fix the breach, and that the vacancy date was wrong. Second, they argued it was not proven that the dealing happened at the home, pointing out that their guilty plea did not say so. Third, they argued that ending the tenancy was not justified. They relied on their efforts at rehabilitation in prison, their improved health, and the importance of the home, where they had lived since 2013, to staying clean and avoiding homelessness.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal made a termination and possession order. It ordered that the tenancy agreement ended at 5 pm on Monday 29 June 2026 and that the tenant must vacate by that time. If the tenant did not leave, the Commissioner could ask the tribunal's Registrar to issue a warrant for eviction.

The tribunal stayed (paused) these orders until 4:00 pm on Monday 20 July 2026. This gave the tenant three weeks to move out and find other secure housing. It also gave them time to get legal advice about whether to appeal. No money was ordered to be paid.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The tribunal was satisfied that the home had been used for drug trafficking. It relied on the intercepted calls and texts, which referred to the tenant being 'at home' or callers being 'nearly at your house', and on police seeing people visit for short periods. The fact that no drugs were found at the home during the search did not change this. The tribunal found there was a real connection between the home and the offending. In its view, the home was central to the dealing, not just a passing link.

On the notice argument, the tribunal decided the breach was not 'capable of remedy'. Under standard term 93, a notice to remedy is only needed if the breach can be fixed. Following a Victorian Court of Appeal case, the tribunal asked whether the effects of the breach could be undone, not just whether the behaviour could stop. It found that a promise to stop dealing could not repair the damage. That damage included the risk to neighbours and the harm to community trust in the Commissioner's ability to run safe public housing. So the Commissioner could go straight to a notice to vacate. The tribunal also found the notice was properly served, by hand and by post, under regulation 5 of the Residential Tenancies Regulation 1998. The 2 December 2025 date was correct, being two weeks after the notice was given by post. Even if the date had been wrong, section 59 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 would let the tribunal correct it, because a later date would not leave the tenant worse off.

Where the breach is about illegal use, section 48(3) and (4) of the Act require the tribunal to be satisfied that the illegal use justifies ending the tenancy. The tribunal can look at the nature of the illegal use, any previous illegal use, and the history of the tenancy. The tribunal found no proven previous illegal use. It gave no weight to older neighbour complaints because they were dated and untested at the hearing. It noted there were no rent arrears. It accepted that the tenant was genuinely committed to staying sober and had completed a prison rehabilitation program. However, it found drug trafficking was at the severe end of the scale. A pre-release report had assessed the tenant as a maximum risk of general reoffending. The tribunal also felt the tenant's repeated focus on their plea not mentioning the home showed a lack of responsibility for the impact on neighbours and on the Commissioner.

The tribunal also considered the tenant's human right not to have their home interfered with unlawfully or arbitrarily. It found no evidence the Commissioner had acted unlawfully or arbitrarily. It accepted that eviction carried serious risks for the tenant, including homelessness and relapse. Even so, it decided eviction was not disproportionate given the seriousness of using the home for drug trafficking. It used its power under section 48(2)(b) to suspend the order for three weeks because of the hardship the tenant would otherwise face.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how the ACT tribunal approaches a tenancy where the home is linked to serious criminal activity. Proving illegal use does not automatically end a tenancy. The tribunal must also be satisfied that the illegal use justifies termination. It weighs the seriousness of the conduct, any earlier problems, and the tenancy history against the tenant's personal circumstances, including the risk of homelessness.

The decision also shows that some breaches may be treated as impossible to fix. In this case, that meant a notice to remedy was not needed before a notice to vacate. The tribunal looked at whether the effects of the breach could be undone, not simply whether the tenant promised to stop. It also shows that a notice served in a way the regulations allow is likely to be treated as validly given, and that a minor error in the vacancy date may be corrected by the tribunal. The outcome in any case depends on its own facts and evidence.

In disputes about ending a tenancy for a breach, the usual first step is a written notice to the other party. Depending on the breach, that is a notice to remedy or a notice to vacate. If the issue is not resolved, an application can then be made to the tribunal.

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

Source: COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL HOUSING v NEWMAN (Residential Tenancies) [2026] ACAT 50 (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.