Piles of broken furniture, an old mattress, bags of clothes and rubbish completely filled an Adelaide Hills home as the resident of 18 years lost her final bid in the Supreme Court to stay in the Housing Trust property.
The woman, who cannot be named, sought permission to appeal her eviction to the Full Court of the Supreme Court, but her case was dismissed by Justice Kevin Nicholson, who said it was "not reasonably arguable".
She was one of 10 SA Housing Trust tenants subject to a SA Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) clean-up order.
Court documents stated that the SA Housing Trust had been attempting to encourage the woman to "clear out excessive quantities of rubbish, materials, disused furniture, boxes and other collections of possessions".
It wanted her to bring the house into a "state of good and proper tenantable repair".
"SA Housing Trust has from time to time provided some assistance to the tenant in this respect," the judgement stated.
"It eventually came to the point where SA Housing Trust brought an application for termination and vacant possession on February 1, 2018."
The case went before SACAT member Marie Alvino, who allowed the woman to stay at the Crafers property on the condition she clean up by designated dates.
She was ordered to clear the backyard, remove all items stored around the perimeter of the house and garage, remove eaves containing asbestos, clear inside the house and return it to a "reasonable, clean and tenantable condition".
She failed to do so.
In November 2018, the house was again inspected by the SA Housing Trust, who found there had been "little change" in the condition of the premises.
It stated that the laundry had been cleaned, but then filled up again with the woman's belongings.
"Two of the five rooms could not be entered as there was no visible floor space to walk on," Justice Nicholson stated.
"The door to a third room could be opened, but only slightly, revealing a room with boxes and other items stacked floor to ceiling.
"The outside of the property had a large amount of furniture, rubbish and unused cars which were filled with her belongings. A skip in the backyard that had been placed there three days prior was virtually empty."
Justice Nicholson dismissed her appeal, and said SACAT had not made an error by upholding the eviction.
He said the deprivation of the woman's tenancy of her long-term home was "extremely important to her".
"But, in my view, the appeal is not reasonably arguable," he found.
In a statement, SA Housing Trust said most tenants did the right thing and kept their homes in good order, but unfortunately there was a "small minority" who did not.
"Court action is used only as a last resort," it stated.
"Staff work extensively with tenants who need help to maintain their tenancy and keep their property clean.
"This process includes setting clear expectations for tenants about their responsibilities to keeping their property clean, while considering any assistance and support they might need, including mental health services in instances of hoarding.
"If tenants do not engage with the support services offered and keep their properties in reasonable condition, Housing SA can seek eviction through the [SACAT].
"If a home has been vacated, that property is cleaned and any required maintenance work completed before the property is made available to other tenants. Where damage to a property is assessed to be more than reasonable wear and tear, the tenant is required to pay for those repairs.
"Currently, there are 10 tenants on SACAT clean up orders."
