Fathisharghbin v Radford

Fathisharghbin v Radford is a case that came before the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, where the tenants, Seyedmaryam Fathisharghbin Morteza Kabiri, brought proceedings against their landlord, Rhonda Radford, concerning alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). The tenants argued that the landlord had unlawfully reduced or withdrawn essential services and facilities, interfered with their quiet enjoyment of the premises, and failed to provide proper access to the property. They sought damages for these alleged breaches and a reduction in the rent.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether the landlord had violated the tenants' rights under the Act by reducing or withdrawing essential services and facilities, interfering with the tenants' right to quiet enjoyment, and failing to provide proper access to the property. Another issue was whether the tenants were entitled to a reduction in the rent due to the alleged breaches and if they were entitled to damages for the landlord's actions.

The Tribunal found that the landlord had indeed breached the tenants' rights under the Act by reducing or withdrawing essential services and facilities, interfering with their quiet enjoyment, and failing to provide proper access to the property. The Tribunal also found that the rent charged was excessive and ordered a reduction for specified periods. As a result, the Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the tenants a total of $14,766.85 in damages and ordered a reduction in the rent. The Tribunal dismissed the application for any further relief.

In summary, the Tribunal held that the landlord had breached the tenants' rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) by reducing or withdrawing essential services and facilities, interfering with their quiet enjoyment, and failing to provide proper access to the property. The Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the tenants $14,766.85 in damages and reduced the rent for specified periods. The application for any further relief was dismissed.