Rent reduction and two repair orders set aside because the tribunal gave no reasons (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenant rented a property in community housing from the Department of Housing and Public Works. She complained of pest infestation, mould, blocked plumbing, rotting stairs and floorboards, excessive heat, a faulty stove, rusted cupboard hinges and broken kitchen cupboards, among other things. She gave the Department a Form 11 Notice to Remedy Breach dated 23 September 2025, listing repairs she said had to be done by 2 October 2025. A Notice to Remedy Breach is the written notice a tenant uses to tell a lessor what is wrong and set a date to fix it.

She then applied to the tribunal for a repair order and a rent reduction, relying on sections 191 and 221 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld). She tendered photographs. At the hearing on 27 January 2026 no one appeared for the Department: a hearing support officer tried three times to connect a representative by telephone and no one came to the phone.

The adjudicator decided the matter in the Department's absence. He found the property was "in quite a state of disrepair", estimated the work would take about two months, reduced the rent by $50 per week backdated to 23 September 2025 until the repairs were done, and ordered a list of repairs by 27 March 2026. The list included securing the back staircase, treating mould, securing bathroom floorboards, resealing the bath, installing five ceiling fans, pest treatment, installing an electric stove, kitchen cupboard repairs, replacing rusted hinges, and replacing the toilet floor covering, which appeared to be marked by cigarette burns.

The Department applied for leave to appeal four parts of that decision: the rent reduction, the five ceiling fans, the swap from a gas stove to an electric stove, and the new toilet flooring. Leave to appeal means permission to appeal, which is needed before the Appeal Tribunal will hear a minor civil dispute appeal. The appeal was heard on the papers, without an oral hearing.

What each side wanted

The Department argued that the rent for this tenancy was already heavily subsidised to 25 per cent of household income, that it was not clear how the figure of $50 per week was arrived at, that the stove order was made without evidence the stove did not work, and that the toilet floor order was based on a cosmetic mark only, with no evidence the floor was out of good repair. On the ceiling fans it said only that it was waiting on contractors, and by 31 January 2026 contractors had been engaged. The Appeal Tribunal treated the rent reduction complaint as alleging a failure to give adequate reasons and a failure to apply the correct test, and treated the stove and toilet floor complaints as alleging findings made without supporting evidence. The tenant's case below had been that the repairs were needed, that the gas stove cooked poorly and damaged her cookware, and that she could not afford both the rent and a gas bill of almost $400 every nine or ten weeks.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Tribunal granted leave to appeal Orders 1, 3(vii) and 3(x) made on 27 January 2026, allowed the appeal of those orders, and set them aside. Those were the $50 per week rent reduction, the order to install an electric stove, and the order to replace the toilet flooring.

The claims for rent reduction, conversion of the gas stove to an electric stove and repair of the toilet floor were remitted to the tribunal as previously constituted for reconsideration in accordance with the appeal reasons. Remitted means sent back to be decided again, and the Appeal Tribunal said this would require a rehearing and the taking of evidence from both parties.

The application for leave to appeal was otherwise dismissed. The rest of the repair orders, including the staircase, mould, bathroom work, pest control, kitchen cupboards, hinges and the five ceiling fans, were left standing. No money was ordered to be paid by either side.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The Appeal Tribunal held that giving inadequate reasons is an error of law where it denies the losing party natural justice, because without reasons a party cannot be confident the case was understood and properly considered. Here the adjudicator noted the tenant had asked for a rent reduction and then simply ordered one of $50 per week. No explanation was given for why rent was reduced at all, or why that amount was chosen, and no consideration was given to the rent not being market rent or how a subsidised rent should affect a reduction ordered under section 221A(4)(e) of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act.

Section 221A(2) of that Act says that before making a repair order the tribunal must consider the conduct of the lessor and the lessor's agent, the risk of injury the damage is likely to cause someone at the premises, and the loss of amenity caused by the damage. The Appeal Tribunal found none of those matters was given any attention in the hearing or in the reasons. Failing to consider matters the Act says must be considered is itself an error of law, and the Appeal Tribunal said these errors could not be cured on appeal.

On the stove and the toilet floor, the Appeal Tribunal found nothing in the transcript showing the section 221A(2) factors were considered, and no findings under section 191. Section 191 allows a repair order only if the lessor has failed a maintenance obligation under section 185(3) or 186(4), the failure endangers health or safety, and the failure can reasonably be remedied. The tenant's reasons for wanting an electric stove were financial, plus marking of her cookware; the toilet floor complaint appeared to be cosmetic only. Neither would satisfy section 191 even if it had been applied.

It was not an error to run the hearing without the Department, given section 93 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act and the three unanswered calls: parties must act in their own interests and that includes attending hearings. The error was in the way the hearing was conducted, appearing to accept the tenant's requests without challenge and without making the findings the Act requires, at one point describing the list as "quite a shopping list". That caused a substantial injustice to the Department, so leave was granted and the appeal allowed. The ceiling fans ground could not proceed because it did not allege any error at all.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows that a repair order and a rent reduction under Queensland tenancy law are not automatic once disrepair is shown. The tribunal must work through the statutory tests: for a repair order under section 221A it must consider the lessor's conduct, the risk of injury and the loss of amenity, and for an order under section 191 it must be satisfied a maintenance obligation was broken, that the breach endangers health or safety, and that it can reasonably be fixed. Complaints that are about cost or appearance rather than repair, safety or fitness to live in sit outside those tests.

It also shows that reasons matter. A decision that states an outcome, such as a set dollar rent reduction, without explaining how that figure was reached or why a reduction was justified can be set aside as an error of law, even where the underlying complaints about the property are real. Nothing in the decision says the repairs were not needed; the orders about the staircase, mould, bathroom, pests and cupboards were left in place.

And it shows the cost of not turning up. The tribunal was entitled to go ahead when no one answered three calls, and the landlord then had to spend a further eight months and an appeal to get three of the orders reopened. In this kind of dispute most people start with a written notice that sets out exactly what needs fixing and gives a date to fix it, keeping the photographs and the notice itself, and only apply to the tribunal if the work is not done by that date.

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

Source: Department of Housing and Public Works v Duxbury [2026] QCATA 140 (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.