Elsom &Taylor- Parker v Coroneos

[2016] NSWCATCD 47

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Elsom &Taylor– Parker v Coroneos [2016] NSWCATCD 47
Hearing dates:	18 April 2016
Decision date:	26 May 2016
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	L Wilson, Senior Member
Decision:	The application is dismissed
Catchwords:	RESIDENTIAL TENANCY − application by tenants for rent reduction or compensation – noise from occupant of another unit − noise not caused by landlord − uninhabitable
Legislation Cited:	Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) ss 43, 45 and 187 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) s 45
Cases Cited:	Menashi v Ly [1997] NSWRT 162 De Soleil v Palmhide Pty Ltd (Tenancy) [2010] NSWCTTT 464 Cameron, Brian (Tenant) v Pemberton, Phil (Landlord) [1997] NSWRT 264 Finn v Finato (Tenancy) [2004] NSWCTTT 179 Hector and ors v Payne and ors [1997] NSWRT 87 Ebbelid and anor v Qin [2014] NSWCATCD 173
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Timothy Andrew Elsom and Brittany Taylor-Parker (applicants) Gloria Coroneos and Alex Coroneos (respondents)
Representation:	Applicant: by step mother Annelise Tuor Respondent: by agent Yvonne Buckley
File Number(s):	RT 16/08917
Publication restriction:	Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. These proceedings involve a claim by the applicant tenants for compensation in respect of a residential tenancy agreement, which is ongoing, or for a rent reduction. There is no application by either party for the agreement to be terminated.

Leave to be represented

2. I granted leave for the applicants to be represented by Mr Elsom’s step mother, Ms Annelise Tuor, due to the applicant’s mental health problems. Mr Elsom was present at the bar table throughout the entire proceedings, sitting next to Ms Tuor who spoke on the applicants’ behalf. Ms Taylor-Parker gave an authority to the Tribunal stating she authorised Ms Tuor to handle the matter on her behalf.

3. I granted leave for the respondents to be represented by their property manager Yvonne Buckley. Ms Buckley was assisted by one of her colleagues.

4. All four persons present at the hearing took an oath or affirmation to tell the truth.

Issues

5. In the application lodged on 15 February 2016, the applicants sought orders for rent reductions and an order as to compensation, pursuant to sections 43, 45 and 187 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (“the Act”).

6. Under the section headed “What are your reasons for requesting the order/s?” in the application, the applicants wrote “Refer Annexure A”. In paragraph [11] of Annexure A the applicants wrote:

We seek redress through the Tribunal process, taking into account the extended period of our significant suffering – approximately 8 weeks (not 3 weeks). Of course we are not suggesting rent reduction for the whole 8 weeks. But, we would expect 3 weeks ‘rent reduction’ as minimum compensation and/or rent reduction given the protracted lack of “quiet enjoyment” of our home. For the first 3 weeks, without due notice of the restart of the intolerable noise and disruption, we could not sensibly abide in our rented premises 7:30am – 3:30pm during any business days.

7. During the hearing the applicants…