Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Makowska v St George Community Housing [2022] NSWCATCD 69 Hearing dates: 11 February 2022 Date of orders: 05 April 2022 Decision date: 05 April 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: K George, General Member Decision: (1) The rent shall not exceed $159.24 from 1 April 2020 to 3 January 2021.
(2) The rent shall not exceed $301.52 from 4 January 2021 to 31 March 2021.
(3) Any overpaid rent over that period is to be paid as a rent credit to the tenant’s account.
(4) On or before 3 June 2022 the landlord is to remediate the lawn in the common area of the premises in a proper and workmanlike manner.
Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Excessive rent — Section 44(1)(b) — Duty of landlord to repair — Rent reduction
Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Capponi v Bridge Housing Limited [2021] NSWCATCD 1
Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Limited (1991) 174 CLR 64
Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22
Texts Cited: Anforth et al, Residential Tenancies Law and Practice, 7th edition, 2017
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Zofia Makowska (Applicant)
St George Community Housing (Respondent)Representation: Applicant (Self-represented)
K Cordero (Respondent)
File Number(s): SH 21/48098 Publication restriction: Nil
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
-
This is an application by the tenant dated 24 November 2021. At the first hearing before the Tribunal on 16 December 2021, the tenant clarified that she is seeking the following orders:
A rent reduction pursuant to section 44(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (‘the Act’), of 10% of the rent from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021.
An order pursuant to section 187(1)(b) that the lawns that form part of the common property of the premises be remedied.
-
At the final hearing on 11 February 2022 the tenant also sought an extension of time to bring her application.
-
The tenant appeared in person at the hearing and provided sworn oral evidence. She also relied on a bundle of documents provided to the Tribunal and to the landlord.
-
The respondent was represented by Ms Cordero, pursuant to an Authorisation to Act. She provided sworn oral evidence and relied on a bundle of documents provided to the Tribunal and to the tenant.
-
Both parties also provided additional written evidence after the hearing in response to the Tribunal’s request for further particulars regarding the rent paid by the tenant over the relevant period.
Jurisdiction
-
The tenant signed a Residential Tenancy Agreement (RTA) with the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (‘NSW Housing’) which commenced on 26 June 1989.
-
On 1 April 2019 the respondent took over management of the tenancy. The tenant chose not to sign a new RTA.
-
The respondent gave the tenant a ‘Confirmation of Transfer of Your Tenancy’ dated 31 March 2019.
-
The respondent…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Makowska v St George Community Housing and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWCATCD 69
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to decide whether the rent charged by the defendant was excessive, contrary to section 44(1)(b) of the Act, and whether the landlord had fulfilled their duty to repair as required under the Act. This involved assessing the reasonableness of the rent in light of comparable properties and the state of repair of the premises. The court also had to determine if the defendant's failure to repair constituted a breach of the landlord's obligations and if any overpaid rent should be credited to the tenant's account.
The court found that the rent charged by the defendant was excessive and ordered it reduced to specified amounts for certain periods. It held that the landlord had failed to maintain the property in a proper condition, particularly the lawn in the common area, and ordered remediation within a specified timeframe. The court further directed that any overpaid rent should be credited to the tenant's account. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff on both grounds.
The orders made by the court included a direction that the rent charged by the landlord should not exceed the specified amounts from certain dates. Additionally, the landlord was required to remediate the lawn in the common area of the premises. Any overpaid rent was to be credited to the tenant's account, and the landlord was to ensure the remediation was completed by a specified date.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The rent shall not exceed $159.24 from 1 April 2020 to 3 January 2021.
(2) The rent shall not exceed $301.52 from 4 January 2021 to 31 March 2021.
(3) Any overpaid rent over that period is to be paid as a rent credit to the tenant’s account.
(4) On or before 3 June 2022 the landlord is to remediate the lawn in the common area of the premises in a proper and workmanlike manner.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.