Lick v Khera

[2025] NSWCATCD 18

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Lick v Khera [2025] NSWCATCD 18

Hearing dates:

28 February 2025

Date of orders:

11 April 2025

Decision date:

11 April 2025

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

A Lynch, General Member

Decision:

1.       Pursuant to Section 44(1(a) the rent increase is to be reduced from $800 per week to $720 per week from 4 November 2024. The rent is to remain at $720 per week for a period of 12 months from 4 November 2024.

2.       The landlords are to pay the tenants the sum of $128.57 pursuant to Section 44(1)(b) for loss of use of the garage for the period from 8 September 2024 to 16 October 2024. The monies are to be paid on or before 24 April 2025.

Catchwords:

LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Rent — Rent increases – excessive rent

Legislation Cited:

Residential Tenancies Act 2020

Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Abella Lick, Melissa Khoh and George Lick (tenants)
Chetan Khera and Manpreet Khera (landlords)

Representation:

Both parties were self-represented

File Number(s):

2024-00355612

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. By way of application lodged on 25 September 2024 the tenants sought orders pursuant to Section 44(1)(a) that a rent increase was excessive. The tenants sought orders pursuant to Section 44(1)(b) for a rent reduction based on the withdrawal of access to the garage. The tenants also sought pursuant to Section 187(1)(c) compensation for loss of access to the garage for 3 weeks from 8 September 2024 to 16 October 2024 while work was being undertaken. Subsequent to the work the tenants have been able to access the garage for their car however they have not been given access to store goods in the garage since 8 September 2024.

2. The tenants in their submissions were also raising issues with compensation for accessing the property without permission but this seems to have occurred after the application was made. There were also issues raised about a subsequent Notice of Termination however that was issued after the application was made and both those issues should be the subject of a separate application as the claim was not amended and the landlord was unable to respond to the additional claims.

3. There is a residential tenancy agreement between the parties that commenced on 25 February 2021. Keys were provided at the commencement of the tenancy including garage keys although the garage is not specifically included in the tenancy agreement description of the premises.

4. The property was purchased by the current landlords on 20 July 2024 and the property settled on 19 August 2024.

5. A rent increase notice was served on 29 August 2024 with rent to increase from $550 per week to $800 per week from 4 November 2024. The notice was sent by email. There is consent to service of notices by email. The appropriate 60 day notice was given. I am satisfied a valid Notice of Rent increase has been served. The application was made within 30 days of the Notice of Rent increase being served. The application is within time.

6. The tenants, Abella and Georgia Lick appeared in person and Abella Lick gave sworn oral evidence. The tenants relied on documents dated 25 November 2024 that included photos of the owners on the property, emails, residential tenancy agreement, condition report, advertisements for similar properties, notice of rent increase and email correspondence between the parties. The landlords had received a copy of those documents.

7. The landlords appeared in person. Mr Chetan Khera gave sworn oral evidence. The landlords provided documents dated 12 December 2024. Those documents included a timeline of repairs, email and SMS correspondence between the parties, photographs of garage, response to market evidence as to rentals, residential tenancy agreement and Notices to comply with by-laws and Notice of Termination.

Tenants’ evidence

8. At the time the current house was purchased it had deteriorated and there were outstanding repairs. They had met the landlords prior to the sale and advised them of repairs that needed to be done.

9. Subsequently there was a 45% increase in the rent. The tenants believe the rent should be approximately $700 per week taking into account rentals for comparative properties, the average rent in the area for a three bedroom, 2 bathroom and one garage property. When the tenants received the rent increase units were about $650 to $730 per week in Parramatta at the time and they relied on their searches in domain. The tenants relied on a graph indicating their current rent of $550 put them in the lower end of the spectrum however the rent increase put them at the very top of the current market.

10. The tenants also provided various advertisements for similar properties with rents that were much lower than the proposed rent increase including properties at various properties including apartments at 5/14-16 Marsden Street and 8/93-95 Thomas Street Parramatta, 17/59 Buller Street 7/16 New Street and 28/44-48 Isabella Street, 5/29 Brickfield Street North Parramatta. There was also a house at 155 Victoria Road Parramatta.

11. The tenants provided an advertisement indicating the property was sold for $2,025,000.

12. The tenants also provided a copy of the ingoing condition report dated 24 February 2021 with photographs of the property showing the state of repair.

13. The tenants also provided photographs of the garage and storage with photographs from 24 February 2021, April 2021, 10 January 2022 8 September 2024 and then 11 and 16 October 2024. They also provided photographs of the broken off roof sheeting on the balcony, photographs of the roof leaking and laundry wall peeling from moisture and black mould under the laundry sink and laundry anteroom.

14. A copy of the letter from the landlord dated 26 August advising of the change of ownership was sent to the tenants.

15. The tenants advised by letter on 2 September 2024 of the issues with the properly including the corrugated roof on the balcony, the significant leaking issue in the hot room off the laundry, issues with the roof and possums in the roof space. They also advised of extensive flooding issues with the garage that have caused issues with storage in the garage space. The tenants advised these issues had been raised multiple times with previous owners. The tenants also noted they had worked hard to maintain the quality of the property particularly in the care of the backyard and building of garden beds.

16. In response the landlord asked they be given details of the repairs required.

17. On 6 September 2024 the tenants were asked to clear out the garage for repairs.

18. The tenants received a notice requesting they remove the garden beds on or before 11 October 2024 as they were in breach of strata by-laws.

19. On 16 October 2024 the tenants were advised the landlord would be self managing the property.

20. The photographs provided by the tenants indicate the property is reasonably run down with mould issues shown in photographs on page 56 and 57 in the laundry. The taps were also leaking but have been subsequently fixed. The balcony roof had deteriorated however it has been removed and not replaced. This has increased the temperature in the property and is allowing rain to come into the property.

21. There is an ongoing issue with water flooding in the garage and driveway and water pooling.

22. There have been two rental increases during the tenancy from $960 per fortnight to $1000 per fortnight in 2022 and from 19 July 2023 the rent increased to $1100 per fortnight.

23. The tenants are also asking for a rent reduction of $30 per week for 5 weeks amounting to $165 and then $20 per week for the lack of storage in the garage.

24. The landlords have continued to store goods in the property. The tenants have always shared with the downstairs tenants however the landlords goods are now taking up part of the available space. Although the garage is not included in the residential tenancy agreement page 41 of the Ingoing Condition report (ICR) specifically refers to the garage.

25. The agent supported their negotiation of $650 but the tenants indicated they are willing to go up to $700 per week.

Landlord’s evidence

26. When the property first settled on 16 August 2024 on the final inspection the tenants advised of the leaking. Immediately upon taking settlement the landlords said they tried to arrange access for a plumber. The access was not arranged until 30 August 2024. They were advised of the laundry taps and they first contacted Sydney Water on 3 September 2025. Sydney Water advised they had tried to contact the tenants multiple times and were unable to repair until 10 September 2025.

27. The landlord says the other tenants also have goods stored in the garage. It is a shared space and always has been between the two lots on the property.

28. The garage issues were to be fixed, however the garage needed to be empty prior to the fix and again there were further delays with removing the items in the garage. The landlord has also undertaken urgent balcony repairs.

29. The landlord says they have undertaken various repairs since the purchase of the property in accordance with requests by the tenants. The landlord said he had spent $7000 on the roof and $2000 on the repairs to the sunroom. The landlords have replaced the laundry tap and whole unit is now water efficient. The garage has been repaired and they have taken two loads of garbage from the property. The garage repairs were delayed as needed to remove the garden beds installed by the tenants that are contributing to the water pooling issues in the driveway and garage.

30. The landlords said they were supposed to commence the roof repairs in December however there have been issues with access and there have been multiple emails exchanged. The balcony roof not yet been replaced but balcony is still usable, just the shade is missing. They have also fixed cupboard doors.

31. The property is a 179 SQM with 3 large bedrooms, 2 toilets and a separate bathroom and laundry. Many of the equivalent properties shown by the tenants have been much smaller as this property is a duplex and of house size proportions. They share the garden with only one other tenant.

32. The landlord also provided an agent recommendation as to the current market rent for the property and issued a notice in accordance with the recommendation. The landlord had his property appraised by two agents. The landlord believes his rent increase is in accordance with comparable rents, if not less than comparable properties.

33. The landlord said the property at Thomas Street referred to by the tenant is only 120 sq m including the garage area. The property at 97/16 New Street is only 96 sq m. When he did a rental check on tenancy.org the median rent for a 3 bedroom property was $850 per week. He believes the average rent for a 3 bedroom property is between $750 and $1000 per week, that makes his rent increase in the moderate rang. He provided his own examples that including a property at 2802/330 Church Street for $1100 per week for a 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom, 1 garage apartment. There was also an apartment at 907A/8 Cowper Street, Parramatta for $930 per week and 383C/180 George Street Parramatta for $1150 per week (with a 2 garage space) and 3/85 Victoria Road Parramatta for $900 per week.

34. The landlord is currently paying $10 000 per month in repayments and also all water bills for the property as well as undertaking and paying for repairs.

Findings

35. The tenants are seeking a rent reduction pursuant to Section 44(1)(b) or compensation for the loss of use of the garage from 8 September 2024 to 16 October 2024 and an ongoing rent reduction or compensation for the loss of use of storage space in the garage.

36. I am satisfied the tenants are entitled to the use of part of the garage as they were provided keys to the garage and the garage was also included on the ingoing condition report.

37. The landlord did repairs so there was a short period where the tenants were not able to park their vehicle in the property. I am satisfied this is a withdrawal of services and allow a sum of $30 per week rent reduction from 8 September 2024 to 16 October 2024 when the car could not be parked in the garage.

38. In regard to ongoing compensation or a rent reduction for the period to date for loss of use of storage space in the garage, I am not satisfied it was ever provided as a storage space and I am also not satisfied on there has been a significant loss of storage space.

39. I prefer the evidence of the landlords there were several items when they purchased the property that had been there for some period of time stored by the previous landlords. It appeared to be an arrangement that had not previously been raised by any of the parties. I cannot be satisfied the fact the new landlords have put some items in the common property is a withdrawal of services. The garage is not waterproof and is available for its purpose of parking the car. I am not satisfied there has been any significant withdrawal of services given there was no evidence there had been previous complaints and/or the items had not been in the garage since the commencement of the tenancy without complaint.

40. The landlords are to pay the tenants the sum of $128.57 being a rent reduction of $30 per week amounting to $4.29 per day for a period of 30 days.

Rent increase

41. The Tribunal may on application by a tenant pursuant to Section 44(1)(a) order a rent increase is excessive. An application that a rent increase is excessive should be made within 30 days of the rent increase notice being served. The application is within time. For the purposes of making an order the Tribunal may under Section 44(5) consider the following:-

“(a) the general market level of rents for comparable premises in the locality or a similar locality,

(b) the landlord’s outgoings under the residential tenancy agreement or proposed agreement,

(c) any fittings, appliances or other goods, services or facilities provided with the residential premises,

(d) the state of repair of the residential premises,

(e) the accommodation and amenities provided in the residential premises,

(f) any work done to the residential premises by or on behalf of the tenant,

(g) when the last increase occurred,

(h) any other matter it considers relevant (other than the income of the tenant or the tenant’s ability to afford the rent increase or rent).”

42. Any rent increase notice only has an effect for a maximum period of 12 months.

43. The rent increase from $550 per week to $800 is substantial representing a rent increase of $250 per week.

44. It was very difficult based on the evidence of either of the parties that any of the comparison properties were similar. The properties by way of comparison provided by the landlord were clearly much newer and in a much better state of repair. They were not persuasive comparisons. Two of the properties that appeared to be slightly older being 907A/8 Cowper Street and 3/85 Victoria Street for $930 per week and $900 per week were older and both of those had two bathrooms but they still appeared to be in a better state of repair. Whether they had two full bathrooms was difficult to establish from the advertisements and Victoria Street had 2 car spaces.

45. The examples for comparison provided by the tenants did not attach any photographs, and they were just property descriptions. I prefer the evidence of the landlord they were much smaller properties comparatively. Therefore they are also insufficient to make any persuasive findings.

46. If I then go to the rent tracker evidence provided by the tenants, on their own evidence the current rent of $550 placed them in the lowest rental for the area for a 3 bedroom property. I accept this included townhouses, semi detached however this property being a duplex is more akin to those types of properties rather than an apartment. A rent of $800 per week would put them in the top 18% of rents. I note however a rental of $700 per week would put them in the middle range.

47. There was no evidence as to the rent being paid by the tenants downstairs by either party and whether they are paying more or less rent or have accepted a rent increase. Although the landlord gave some oral evidence about the costs of repairs, no invoices were provided nor was there any statement confirming the monthly repayments.

48. The landlord says when he used the rent checker tool on the NSW Government rent checker the rent was said to be between $750 to $1000 per week. The weekly rent proposed of $800 is within the median range. The landlord also provided two estimates from real estate agents dated 21 November 2024 and 6 December 2024 and they both suggested around $800 to $850 per week however there is no evidence they attended the property.

49. I have looked at the photographs of the property. It is clearly older and there are substantial repair issues including leaking and roof issues. It is however a much larger than average property than might be expected for an apartment.

50. I am not persuaded the agents who provided letters had visited the property to make a property estimate. They were also likely to be advising of significantly higher rents on the basis they might obtain the management of the properties so had a financial incentive to over estimate the appropriate rent.

51. I am however satisfied on the evidence the landlord has purchased the properties for $2025000 and has substantial repayments that he says are $10000 per month and paying for water bills and I find the landlords credible witnesses. They have clearly undertaken several repairs since they purchased the property and are prepared to undertake further repairs.

52. In weighing up all of these issues, as best as I am able I find the appropriate rent increase is $720 per week. That is on the basis of the tenant’s rent tracker of a median rent of $700 per week and also taking into account the repairs undertaken by the landlord since they have purchased the property. The tenants are also not paying any of their water bills and have access to the garden they have clearly utilised that provides substantial amenity to the property. The property is however in a state of repair reflecting the age of the property and the deterioration over time, in particular the balcony and the loss of the roof over the balcony current resulting in water ingress during rain and loss of protection.

53. The rent is to increase from $550 per week to $720 per week from 4 November 2024 for a period of twelve months. It is still a substantial increase but I am not satisfied the rent increase to $800 per week is justified given the increase is not proportionate to the previous rent and given the state of repair of the property.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 26 May 2025