John Rau: Approve SACAT to make orders for the re-imbursement of costs, where the Tenant is at fault The current position of SACAT in relation to Residential Tenancy orders, is that SACAT members do NOT currently have the legislative jurisdiction or authority to make Residential Tenancy determinations that require/enforce a Tenant to re-imburse a Landlord for the legal expenses incurred as a result of the tenant being at fault. This position must change, and SACAT must permit orders to be made for the re-imbursement of the landlords legal costs when a tenant is at fault!!! At present, the landlord of a Residential Tenancy Agreement in South Australia must beare ALL Tribunal Application and representation costs that maybe incurred in having a Tenant breech of contract remedied through SACAT, including but not limited to the access of Bond monies being owed. The interpretation of the legislation does provide for this to occur, however SACAT have stated on numerous occasions they do not have the authority. Residential Tenancies Act 78A—Compensation for expenses (1) If, as a direct consequence of a tenant being at fault, a landlord reasonably incurs costs or expenses in connection with the residential tenancy agreement, the landlord is entitled to compensation for the costs or expenses. There is currently a very genuine disadvantage and injustice to the landlord (financially) in having to outlay further expense to seek rent money already owed, or bond money for which they should be entitled to settle without even further non-refundable legal expense. Other civil jurisdictions within the South Australian Legal system, provide the opportunity for a judge/member to order that a party at fault be held accountable for the costs incurred by the party in connection with a failure to abide by their legal obligation. These changes must be affected immediately, to stop the haemorrhage of funds from the many thousands of property investors seeking very basic contract entitlements. The current position of SACAT in not acceptable and must change to ensure they abide by the very principles that govern their objective to promote natural justice, procedural fairness, quality, transparency, consistency and accountability.