Bulmash v Webster

The applicant, Bulmash, sought relief from the Residential Tenancies Tribunal of New South Wales against the respondent, Webster, the landlord, regarding the condition of the property Bulmash was renting. Bulmash alleged that Webster failed to repair the property, specifically the paintwork, and sought reimbursement for the costs of repainting, as well as a reduction in rent due to the reduction in amenity caused by the paintwork's deterioration. Webster denied liability for the cost of repainting and argued that any reduction in amenity was not sufficient to warrant a reduction in rent.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether an agreement existed for Webster to reimburse Bulmash for the repainting costs, and whether the deterioration of the paintwork constituted a reduction in amenity warranting a reduction in rent. The Tribunal also needed to determine if Bulmash's claim for damages was valid, considering the remoteness of the damage. The central question was whether the deterioration of the paintwork was significant enough to justify a reduction in rent and if Bulmash was entitled to reimbursement for the repainting costs.

The Tribunal found that while Bulmash had provided evidence of the landlord's awareness of the deteriorating paint, no agreement for reimbursement was established. The Tribunal further determined that although the paintwork's condition constituted a reduction in amenity, Bulmash had not proven the extent of this reduction to warrant a specific rent reduction. The Tribunal held that the deterioration of the paint did not constitute a breach of the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment or a significant reduction in amenity. Regarding the repainting costs, the Tribunal found that Bulmash had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim for reimbursement.

The Tribunal ordered a reduction in rent from 15 October 2015 to 10 January 2016 due to the reduction in amenity, setting the weekly rent at $525.00. Bulmash was also entitled to reimbursement of the excess rent paid during that period. The application for reimbursement of repainting costs and other claims was dismissed.